NAGAR AYUKT NAGAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as a sweeper in the Nagar Nigam w.e.f. 1st November, 1994 on a temporary basis, but was working on a permanent post, and in this fashion continued to work for more than 10 years. In 2000, the Regularization Rules came into existence, and the workman applied for regularization of his services. The employers took action on his application by putting a note and forwarding it to the Competent Authority who recommended the matter and sent it to the Selection Committee. Inspite of this direction, the matter of regularization of the services of the workman was not placed before the Selection Committee between the years 2000 to 2005, and when a government order dated 12th March, 2005 imposed a ban on appointments, the Competent Authority conveniently consigned the application of the workman on the ground that the State Government has now imposed a ban. The workman being dissatisfied with the action of the Competent Authority in not making him permanent, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the labour court for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was "whether the employers justified in not making the workman permanent in the service of the Nagar Nigam as Sweeper? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to."

(2.) Before the Labour Court, the workman contended that he has been working for more than 10 years on a permanent post. The duty which the workman was performing was permanent in nature and that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, but was being paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month whereas a pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 was being given to the regular workers who were performing the same kind of work as that being performed by the workman. The written statement also contended that a junior has been made permanent in the Nagar Nigam.

(3.) The employers in their written statement admitted the factum of the employment of the workman from 1991 onwards, but contended that he was appointed on a temporary basis on a fixed pay and that he was not entitled to be regularized or made permanent. The respondents in their evidence, however, admitted that a notesheet was prepared and the case of the workman was forwarded to the Selection Committee, but no action was taken on the regularization of the service of the workman, and eventually, a ban order was issued by the State Government.