RAJENDRAKUMAR RATILAL SUKHADIA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dtd. 20/11/2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 111 in Reference (I.T.) No. 11 of 2011, whereby the reference, with regard to not extending the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days, has been rejected.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Songara for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed on April, 1997, as a Conductor however, he was not extended the benefit of time scale as per the settlement dtd. 21/12/1989. He has submitted that thereafter, the benefit of time scale was given on 20/12/2007 and the reference of industrial dispute indicates that he has claimed the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days from his initial appointment. He has submitted that the respondent authority did not place the petitioner on time scale and continued him as a Badli worker. He has submitted that the petitioner was denied the benefit of time scale since the settlement provides that after completion of 180 days, daily wager is to be placed in time scale hence, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts in its true perspective and, therefore, it is urged that the impugned award may be set aside.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the Tribunal is impressed with regard to the delay in raising the industrial dispute however, such view expressed by the Tribunal is incorrect since non-extending the benefit of time scale would be a continuous cause. Further, it is submitted that the respondent authority did not produce anything, which would show that they had prepared any seniority list of daily wagers and the post was not vacant and in absence of such details, the Tribunal should not have rejected the reference.