VEGAD CHITHARBHAI MOHANBHAI Vs. KHETIVADI UTPAN BAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks quashment of the award dated 30th April, 2015 passed below Reference D No.1 of 2001 by Labour Court, Bhavnagar whereby, the Reference came to be rejected. The petitioner workman sought regularization of service which came to be declined by the Labour Court principally on two grounds:

(2.) Having considered the rival contentions, both the above grounds for rejection of the Reference are found to be not sustainable for the following reasons.

(3.) What is discernable from Sec. 22 is the power vested with the market committee and not the Government to employ Secretary or other officers and servants as may be necessary for the management; with the salaries, leave allowances, pensions or gratuity as deemed proper by the market committee, subject to the Rules made in this behalf. Rule 41A categorizes the market committee into category A, B and C depending upon the annual income for the last 3 completed years respectively being above 16 lakhs, between 8 and 16 lakhs and above Rs.2 lakhs and up to Rs.8 lakhs subject to the satisfaction of other conditions provided in the proviso to the Rule. For approving the pay scale, the Market Committee is to be guided by various factors as indicated in the proviso to Rule 41A and other relevant provisions. Beyond what is specifically provided in Sec. 22 and Rule 41A or in any other provision, neither the Director nor the State is contemplated to have any control on the authority of the market committee in employing its officers and servants. Thus, the sanction of the post by the Government having not been contemplated under the Act or Rules, the finding rendered by the Labour Court that no sanctioned set up was available with the market committee is erroneous in as much as it is for the market committee itself to decide its own set up after taking into consideration the relevant factors indicated in Sec. 22 of the Act read with Rule 41A of the Rules.