NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM SAGAR Vs. M H KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING an award passed by the Labour Court Sagar in a reference made under Section 10 r/w 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 this writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation.

(2.) THE award in question is dated 16.4.2004 and is Annexure P-5 to the writ petition, by the said award the labour court has held that respondent Dr. M.H. Khan be regularized as Homeopathy Doctor and all consequential benefit be granted to him. Facts that has come on record indicates that Dr. Khan was appointed as a Homeopathy Doctor in the establishment of Municipal Corporation Sagar vide oder dated 2.5.89, his appointment was made to grant benefit of homeopathy treatment to the citizens of the area in question. Initially he was granted wages as notified by the Collector under Minimum Wages Act from time to time and after his appointment on 2.5.1989 he continued to work continuously for more than 10 years upto 1999. Thereafter he represented for regularization and when regularization was not done, the case of Dr. Khan was taken up by an employees' Union and the dispute was raised before the competent authority, failing conciliation, the appropriate government made a reference of the dispute on 14.5.1999 and the Labour Court on the basis of evidence and material that came on record having passed the award, the Municipal Corporation has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure P-5 dated 16.4.2004.

(3.) SHRI Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents refute the aforesaid and taking me through the statement of workman concerned Dr. M.H. Khan (P.W.1) Annexure P-3, the statement of witness of the establishment Shri Rajendra Prasad Dubey, Annexure P-4, emphasized that ever since his appointment in the year 1989 respondent Dr. Khan was working against the vacant post for which budgetary sanction was granted by the State. He is now in employment for more than 24 years and the payment to him every year is being paid on the basis of the sanction and budget accorded by the State Government as demand made by the Corporation and, therefore as the respondent was working against the post of Homeopathy Doctor for which every year budget was being sanctioned by the State Government now merely on the technical ground that State Government has not sanctioned the post, Shri Shailesh Mishra submits that the claim of respondent workman cannot be rejected.