AMRELI MUNICIPALITY Vs. SAURASHTRA SHRAMIK SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made by the employer Municipality, to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.71 of 2001 dated 01.09.2012. The Tribunal has ordered that, the respondent workman shall be treated to be in the regular employment of the Municipality, with effect from January, 2001, on the post of Clerk, on which he is working since the year 1989, and shall be paid his wages as is paid to other confirmed employees working in the said cadre. The Tribunal has further ordered that, the period from January, 2001 to the date of award shall be notional.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for the petitioner Municipality, Mr. G.M.Joshi, learned advocate for the contesting respondent workman and Mr.Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Authorities.

(3.) MR .Sanchela, learned advocate for the petitioner Municipality has submitted that, the Tribunal has committed error by giving direction as contained in the impugned award, since the respondent workman was not appointed after following due process of recruitment, and further that there is no vacant post in the sanctioned set up, the petitioner has to follow the instructions given by the Government regarding regularisation of service and / or confirmation of the workman on permanent post, and if the workman is treated to have been regularised against permanent vacant post, it will be a back door entry, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that only because the concerned workman has worked for very long period, that itself is no ground to treat the said workman to be in regular employment on permanent post and he would not be entitled to get wages which other regularly appointed workmen might be getting. He has submitted that the Tribunal did not have power to grant the relief which it has. It is also submitted that the expenditure of the Municipality is also exceeding the stipulation prescribed by the Authorities of the Government and the implementation of the impugned award would be inconsistent with the set up sanctioned by the Government. It is therefore submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside.