STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially for challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar dated 29.07.2017 in Reference (IT) No. 71 of 2013.

(2.) The facts which have generated the present litigation are that a dispute was raised originally before the Conciliation Officer by the respondent - workman claiming to be a permanent employee which ultimately was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in which as per the claim statement of the respondent - workman through Union, that since about two years in permanent set up, on permanent vacant posts, the respondent was employed and was working as a Sweeper (Class-IV) with all sincerity and honesty and for more than 240 days have been continuously discharging his duties with the respondent, but then junior to the respondent - workman were appointed and later on made permanent as well and in turn with effect from 03.04.2000, the services were put to an end without complying any procedure. The said discontinuance was made the subject matter and Reference (LCJ) No.11 of 2005 in which by an award dated 10.12.2008 direction was issued to reinstate with continuity of service to the original post. Now this award which has been passed against the petitioner was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 5604 of 2009 in which, the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, in favour of the respondent workman was confirmed, as a result of that with effect from 11.02.2010 by office order the respondent workman was reinstated by the present petition.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma appearing for the petitioner - State has vehemently contended that the award in question is in consonance with the settled position of law and is also based upon misreading of the evidence as a whole and therefore, such error of jurisdiction is required to be corrected by way of granting the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Learned AGP Mr. Sharma has further contended that after the passage of two years since the respondent was discontinued but then by way of order of this Court was complied with and was reinstated with effect from 11.02.2010 and as such the said period of original discontinuance and reinstatement cannot be made a base for granting the relief as prayed for in the reference. Learned AGP Mr. Sharma has further contended that no details are provided by the respondent for claiming parity and as such simply by ascertaining that others have been granted the benefit, the said circumstance cannot be utilized as a lever to extend the benefit which otherwise the respondent is entitled. 3. 1. Learned AGP has further contended that even the order which has been passed is supported by cogent reasons which will make it clear the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised by the Industrial Tribunal. Learned AGP Mr. Sharma has further contended that grant of monetary benefit after this much period is also just and proper which would unnecessarily costs burden upon the financial structure of the petitioner and therefore, simply because no case is made out, no automatic benefit should be made available by the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The decisions which have been relied upon are to be applied as straight jacket formula as the facts are altogether different in those and as a result of this, the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal is erroneous, perverse to the record which requires interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. 2. Even otherwise, the award is just and proper, hence, the petition requested to be allowed by learned AGP Mr. Sharma.