DIST DEVEOPMENT OFFICER Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pranav V. Shah for petitioner and Mr. T.R. Mishra for the respondent workman. In this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner DDO, District Panchayat, Bhavnagar has challenged the award made by the labour court Bhavnagar in Reference ((LDC) No. 31 of 1998 dated 20th March, 2006 wherein the labour court has partly allowed the reference and granted benefit of permanency after completion of the period of three years from the date of joining to respondent workman as a peon and granted difference of salary, allowance and other benefits with effect from 3.8.1998. Labour court has also directed that the period from 2.4.91 to 3.8.98 should be considered as notional and respondent will not be entitled for any amount of arrears for said interim period but for the purpose of seniority, promotion, increments and retirements, full time employment from 2.4.1991 should have to be taken into account. Under the said award, labour court has awarded cost of Rs.500.00. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the labour court has committed error in granting benefit of permanency to the workman. He also submitted that the Government Circular dated 26.12.1980 has been kept in abeyance by the Government vide Government Circular dated 21.8.1995. Government Circular dated 21.8.95 has been placed on record before the labour court vide Exh. 26/A but the labour court has not considered the same while considering the matter and has therefore erred in granting benefit in favour of the respondent workman contrary to the Government Circular dated 21.8.1995. It was also his submission that the labour court has erred in not appreciating the evidence produced by the petitioner in directing the petitioner to regularise services of workman as full time employee though the respondent was not recruited under the procedure or service rules framed by the petitioner. He submitted that the respondent was working as a part time peon and no post was vacant in the set up, therefore, labour court has erred in granting benefits. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr.Shah. Except the decision in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Umadevi and others,(supra), no other decision was cited by him before this court.

(2.) On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mishra while opposing the petition and supporting the award in question, submitted that the labour court was right in appreciating the evidence on record and there is no contrary finding given by the labour court. According to him, the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how the findings recorded by labour court are perverse or contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, this court is having very limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this court cannot reappreciate the evidence appreciated by the labour court. It was also his submission that this court cannot act as an appellate authority. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submitted that the respondent was working from 2nd April, 1988. He continued in service with the petitioner but the respondent remained as part time and his services were not regularized by petitioner and, therefore, this aspect has been rightly appreciated and considered by the labour court and, therefore, labour court was right in granting benefits after appreciating the evidence of witness for petitioner. He emphasized that the witness of the petitioner Shri Pragji Ravji was examined before the labour court at Exh. 24. He admits in clear terms that at present two posts in set up are vacant, one is the post of Doctor and one of peon are vacant and considering the oral evidence of the witness for petitioner at Exh. 24, labour court directed petitioner to regularize the service of workman on the post of peon w.e.f. 2.4.91. Therefore, according to him, labour court has not committed any error warranting interference of this court in exercise of the powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. I have perused award in question made by the labour court, Bhavnagar. I have also perused other annexures annexed to the memo of this petition, namely Circular dated 26.12.80, 14.3.88, statement of claim, circular dated 21.8.95 and the written statement filed by petitioner before the labour court.