SVIVABHAI DALABHAI BARIA Vs. KALOL MUNICIPAL BAROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the common question of entitlement of regularization in service of Kalol Municipality arises in these petitions, the same have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) The petitioners have inter-alia contended that they have been continuously working on their respective post since last 11 to 31 years with the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is Kalol Municipality. Respondent No. 2 is the District Panchayat, Panchmahals and respondent No. 3 is the State of Gujarat. The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to be regularized in service in the respective posts and that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work. The nature of the work attached to their posts is of permanent nature. According to the contention of the petitioners, they are working on permanent posts of Octroi Clerk, Naka Watchman, Octroi Watchman, Ravania, Valveman, Pump Driver, Gardener, Supervisor, Watersupply Watchman, Fireman, Fire Fighter Driver and Fireman, in the office of Kalol Municipality. The duties and responsibilities of the petitioners are also of permanent nature and it is exactly similar to the duties and responsibilities performed by regular employees. the petitioners have also contended that they are deprived of their valuable right for equal pay for equal work as they are working on permanent posts and doing the same work as that of regular employees since more than 11 to 31 years. The petitioners have, therefore, contended that the respondent Municipality has indulged in unfair labour practice of not giving equal pay for equal work and of not regularizing on the respective posts though they are qualified for being appointed on the permanent posts. The petitioners have, therefore, invoked the extraordinary, equitable, plenary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents have challenged the claim of the petitioners made in the petitions. The respondent Municipality has also filed affidavit-in-reply inter-alia denying the allegations of unfair labour practice, exploitation or denial of equal pay for equal work. It is the case of the respondent Municipality that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized. The right to get equal pay for equal work is also challenged contending that the petitioners are appointed dehors the rules and requirements of public institutions. Regularization of the petitioners as claimed is not in the interest of public employment.