AJAYSINH KHUMANSINH ZALA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dtd. 18/7/2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, below Exh.27 in Reference (I.T.) No. 294 of 2012, 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.Chaudhari for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 28/12/1999, 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 5/1/2010 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 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 Mr.P.C.Chaudhari has submitted that one of the employees has been granted the benefit of time scale after he agreed to treat the intervening period to be treated as notional. Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner may not be discriminated.