UMRETH NAGARPALIKA Vs. KAMLESHBHAI BABUBHAI HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under clause-15 of Letters Patent, challenge is to oral judgment dated 21.8.2018 rendered by learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 21692 of 2016, which petition was filed by the appellant municipality under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 30th August, 2016 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 2013, whereby learned Tribunal directed the municipality to regularize the services of about 47 employees (Safai Karmachari), to confer status of permanent employees w.e.f. 14.12.2011 and to pay regular salary in regular pay scale with effect from the date of the award and to consider the interregnum as notional.

(2.) Before the learned single Judge, manifold contentions were raised by the municipality, namely, about demand of claim of the workmen on the ground that their appointments were not regular and there were no sanctioned posts available; that there were no vacancies on the establishment; that the workmen were appointed on daily wage, purely on ad hoc basis and could not claim entitlement for regularization of service. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the material on record and therefore, arrived at incorrect finding by drawing conclusion adverse to the interest of the municipality. At the same time, contention on behalf of the union representing the employees was accepted that 49 vacancies were of permanent nature and were existing on the establishment, which were subsequently sanctioned by the competent authority and continuous and uninterrupted service of more than 16 years of each workman resulted into unjust and arbitrary termination in the matter of public employment. On careful perusal of record of the case before the learned Tribunal and findings, reasonings and conclusions drawn by learned Tribunal, in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, learned single Judge categorically noted emergence of undisputed facts in favour of employees and finally upholding the award passed by the learned Tribunal, rejected the writ petition.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment, present appeal is filed.