BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. MAHENDRA JASHVANTRAI DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners for challenging the legality, validity and propriety of an award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB -D) No.45 of 1994 on 9.12.2003 whereby, the learned Presiding Officer had directed the petitioners to regularize the services of respondent ­ workman w.e.f. 31.8.1994 and to pay all consequential monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.1.2002. However, in the said Reference, the petitioners sought a relief to hold that respondent ­ workman is not eligible or entitled to regularize in the services of the Bhavnagar District Panchayat. It is in the context of this relief, the petitioners have brought this petition before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent ­ workman was working as a daily wager on a purely temporary basis and ad -hoc basis and was appointed without following any due process and recruitment rules. It is further the case of the petitioners that respondent ­ workman was not appointed on any permanent sanctioned post and no recruitment has taken place after following due procedure and the workman was paid the wages as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, in the background of this brief set of circumstance, the petitioners have questioned the validity of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer.

(3.) Before dealing with the contentions, it appears from the material on record that respondent ­ workman was no doubt a daily rated employee kept by the petitioners authority in the month of January,1985 to the post of Dressorand after almost a period of more than 4 years, w.e.f. 1.1.1989 he was discontinued from the services and that discontinuance was the subject matter of earlier Reference before the learned Presiding Officer and in response thereof, w.e.f. 1.1.1992 respondent ­ workman was reinstated in the services by the present petitioners. It is the case of the workman appearing from the record that w.e.f.1.1.1985 continuously, as per the say of the respondent ­ workman, he was working for all these years and the duties which are being performed by the respondent ­ workman are of a permanent nature. When the discontinuance set at rest, the respondent ­ workman was all throughout allowed to work in the employment and long lapse of period has constrained the respondent ­ workman to seek a reference for regularization of his services in the employment. The said industrial dispute was referred to the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court which was registered as Reference (LCB -D) No.45 of 1994 and the terms of the reference was that whether respondent ­ workman is entitled to be continued to the post and is also entitled to monetary benefits or not and this reference, as indicated in Para.1 of the award, is the subject matter before the learned Presiding Officer. Vide Exh.5, the claim statement was submitted by respondent ­ workman and ultimately, by mentioning the fact that he is working since so many years continuously all throughout, is entitled to seek regularization in view of proposition of law propounded by series of decisions. It has been contended as appearing that other employees have been regularized and it has been submitted by respondent ­ workman that petitioners authority have to act as a model employer and it was submitted that by not regularizing his services, not only unfair labour practice is adopted by the petitioners but, exploitation is made by the petitioners and therefore, under these circumstance, the workman had claimed regularization.