LALJI SHAMJI KUHADA Vs. PORBANDAR NAGARPALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Pathak for the petitioner and D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent Nagarpalika. In this petition, the petitioner is praying to direct the respondent to regularize his services with effect from the date on which the services of his juniors have been regularized by the respondent as a Fireman and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. and to continue the petitioner as a daily wage employee after his reinstatement and for holding that the respondent is not justified in continuing the petitioner as a daily wage employee after his reinstatement in service in light of the regularization of the services of the persons junior to him and for holding that it is a clear case of pick and choose policy. In substance, the petitioner is praying to direct the respondent to regularize his services on the basis of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot against the present Nagarpalika. Copy of the said award in Reference (IT) no. 28 of 1989, 139 of 1990 and 142 of 1990 is annexed by the petitioner at page 24 of the compilation.

(2.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Pathak that the workmen covered by the award made by the tribunal in aforesaid references were similarly situated persons and all the workmen covered by the said award have become permanent as per the award made by the tribunal on 21st May, 1993 and they are getting their salary in the scale and other service benefits. He submitted that the petitioner is also a similarly situated person and the respondent has regularized the services of the workmen on the basis of the said award who were junior to the petitioner. He submitted that the tribunal has passed the said award on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He further submits that the petitioner is satisfying all the conditions as incorporated by the tribunal in the award to get the regularization and even the services of the employees junior to the petitioner have also been regularized and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit on the basis of the said award based on the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He also submitted that the said award made by the tribunal was accepted by the respondent and it was not challenged before the Higher Forum. Thereafter, the award was implemented by giving benefit of regularization in favour of those workmen who were junior to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit at par with those workmen covered by the said award based on the GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION dated 17.10.1988. Learned advocate Mr. Pathak submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1984 and while he was facing termination, while he was out of service, during that period, some of the daily rated employees of the respondent Nagarpalika raised industrial dispute through union wherein similar demand was raised by the workmen for regularization of their services on the basis of the GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION dated 17.10.1988 wherein the tribunal made award after considering the submissions made by the parties before it.

(3.) As against that, learned advocate Mr. D.G.Chauhan appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the recovery application no. 13 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner and the said recovery application was withdrawn by the petitioner on 18.9.1995 while accepting the amount offered by the respondent. He also submitted that at present, no posts are available in the respondent establishment. He submitted that the petitioner is having alternative remedy before the tribunal. If he wants regularization of his services, he should approach the machinery provided under the ID Act, 1947 which can appropriately deal with and decide the disputed questions of fact. According to his submission, the petition is involving disputed questions of fact which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided by this Court and, therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed with heavy costs.