JAMJODHPUR NAGARPALIKA Vs. TEJASKUMAR RUDABHAI VINZUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 27/6/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant Jamjodhpur Nagarpalika challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in two connected writ petitions.

(2.) The facts in brief relevant to decide the controversy at hand are that a reference was made by the respondent workman seeking reinstatement and permanency in the permanent set up of the Nagarpalika as Peon with all consequential benefits. The petitioner Nagarpalika / appellant herein had challenged the award on the ground that the appointment of the respondent workman had been made without following due procedure and hence, there was no question of continuance much less permanency. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein vehemently argues that the award to grant permanency or regularise the services of the respondent workman is wholly illegal, inasmuch as, the respondent workman was a daily wager. The Labour Court has proceeded to hold that the respondent workman has completed 240 days preceding 12 months and for termination of services, the procedure for retrenchment had not been followed. The contention is that the Labour Court has erred in granting permanency, issuing direction to the appellant not only to reinstate the respondent workman but also grant him appointment on a permanent post, which was wholly without jurisdiction. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Krishan Gopal and others [2020 SCC OnLine SC 150] to assert that the powers of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court cannot be extended to a direction to order regularisation, where such a direction offends the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution, in the context of public employment. The submission is that the appointment of the respondent workman being a backdoor entry and there being no sanctioned post, the Labour Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing for regularisation. Further, the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in issuing direction to the appellant Nagarpalika to adjust the respondent workman as per the vacant posts available in the sanctioned set up instead of Peon, though it was of the view that the direction of the Labour Court granting permanency on particular post of Peon was based on no evidence, and the award was required to be interfered with to that extent.

(3.) Taking note of the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are required to record that the reference before the Labour Court was for regularisation of the temporary services of the respondent workman. The claim of the workman was that he had been in service for almost 20 years and had wrongly been treated to be a temporary employee, though there were vacant posts in the establishment. The appellant Nagarpalika has discriminated as the respondent workman has been paid wages lesser than which is being earned by other employees rendering similar services. While issuing direction for granting permanency, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent workman had been working with the appellant Nagarpalika continuously since 1999 uptil August 2010 when his services were terminated. No reason could be assigned by the appellant Nagarpalika before the Labour Court for continuance of the respondent workman temporarily, though the permanent vacancy was available.