ZAVERBHAI DAHYABHAI VAGHELA Vs. TALAJA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of five petitions, the employer - municipality, has assailed the order and award passed by the concerned Labour Court, whereunder the employer is directed to treat the workman as regular employee and granted all the benefits including arrears and difference of wages and other consequential benefits on the ground that the workman had been working continuously and the was so perennial in nature. The Civil Applications have been filed by the workman seeking various reliefs, therefore, all these matters were clubbed together and heard and now are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. The facts in respect of all the matters, as could be culled out from the memo of petition and date of events succinctly depicted in tabular manner as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_54_LAWS(GJH)8_2015.html</FRM>

(2.) Thus, essentially above indicated facts would go to show that the workman's claim treatment at bar, with other workmen on account of they being continuously working and discharging their duties in respect of the work, which was found to be perennial in nature, not treating them as permanent employee, was said to be unfair labour practice, so as to hit by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the Municipality contended that the Labour Court erred in not appreciating the fact that Municipality has to work under the provisions of Municipality Act and the recruitment procedure as prescribed, which is required to be followed, which would indicate that the workman, if has not undergone the specific procedure, is not entitle to seek any benefit of regularization.