SIHORE MUNICIPALITY Vs. BHARATBHAI NONGHABHAI GADHVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - Sihore Municipality has challenged oral order dtd. 9/7/2019 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant - original petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dtd. 22/5/2017 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.27 of 2006 whereby direction was given to Municipality to regularize the services of four workmen of Union - Saurashtra Shramik Sangh from the date of reference i.e. 27/2/2006 and further in addition, it is directed to grant promotion to two of the respondent workmen i.e. Bharatbhai Nondhabhai Gadhvi from the post of Ward Peon to District Inspector and Vijaybhai Hasmukhbhai Vyas from the post of Librarian to Shop Inspector and to pay all the consequential benefits at par with other regular employees of the same post in the Municipality.

(2.) Mr. Deepak P. Sanchela, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - original petitioner would submit that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed an error in granting promotion to a person from one post to other post, contrary to the terms of the reference. By taking us through the terms of the reference dtd. 15/5/2006, he would submit that the schedule to the reference shows that Bharatbhai Nondhabhai Gadhvi was working as Ward Peon, Gaurang H. Shukla as Clerk, Vijaybhai Hasmukhbhai Vyas as Librarian and Vanrajsinh Bhupatbhai Parmar as Clerk. He would further submit that the learned Industrial Tribunal has erred in granting regularization to the services of Bharatbhai Nondhabhai Gadhvi as Ward Peon from 27/2/2006 and thereafter as District Inspector from 1/1/2014 and services of Vijaybhai Hasmukhbhai Vyas as Librarian from 27/2/2006 i.e. the date of filing of reference and thereafter as Shop Inspector from 13/10/2013. He would further submit that such an order ought not to have been passed by the Industrial Tribunal. He, therefore, would submit that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed error which has not been appreciated by learned Single Judge. He, therefore, would submit that both the orders may be quashed and set aside and the present appeal may be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Gaurang K. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that it is true that at the time of filing of the Reference, the respondent No.1 was shown as Ward Peon as he was working on the said post. However, during the pendency of the Reference, the respondent No.1 was given duties as District Inspector and in support of the same, the respondent No.1 had produced sufficient evidence before the Industrial Tribunal which has been proved by him by leading proper evidence. He would further submit that even the respondent No.1 was paid salary as District Inspector by the appellant Municipality from the respective date i.e. 1/1/2014 as referred in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. He, therefore, would submit that all these aspects have been dealt with by learned Single Judge and rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Municipality. He, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be dismissed.