SOLANKI TUSHAR M Vs. KANDLA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. All these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the respective petitioners employees of respondent No.1 Kandla Port Trust basically making a grievance against respondent No.1 Kandla Port Trust which is a public undertaking of not implementing the settlement dated 08.08.2005 arrived at between the petitioner Union and respondent No.1 Kandla Port Trust under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act") in its true spirit and totality. It is also further prayed to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2, their subordinate officers, servants to regularize services of the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil) against available vacancy with effect from from the date of creation of such vacancy and offer all other consequential and incidental benefits thereto to the petitioners.

(2.) Shri R.J. Oza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has vehemently submitted that the settlement dated 08.08.2005 has been signed before the conciliation officer by the representative of the Kandla Port Trust under specific authority given by the Secretary of the Kandla Port Trust. Therefore, the terms of the said settlement is binding on the respondent Port Authority considering Rule 37 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

(3.) Petitions are opposed by Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Kandla Port Trust employer. It is submitted that as such all the petitioners came to be appointed as Junior Officers with a specific stipulation of period of appointment as also clarifying that such temporary ad-hoc would not confer any right to the respective appointees for being regularized. Therefore, it is submitted that as such it is not open for the petitioners to claim the regularization in services.