AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—Special Civil Application No. 6640 of 1999 has been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 9.10.1998 passed in Reference (I.T.) No. 18 of 1991 by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara rejecting the petitioner''s claim for permanency with effect from 1.6.1977 and further to declare the petitioner is entitled to permanency with effect from 1.6.1977.
Special Civil Application No. 8031 of 1999 has been preferred by the Municipal Corporation with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned Award dated 9.10.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T) No. 18 of 1991 directing the petitioner-Municipal Corporation to make the respondent herein permanent and regular with effect from 1.6.1992 irrespective of the policy of the petitioner-Corporation as well as vacancies.
Special Civil Application No. 8517 of 1999 has been preferred by Municipal Corporation with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 13.1.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No. 87 of 1992 directing the petitioner-Corporation to treat the respondents herein as permanent with effect from 5:11.1992 and give all the consequential benefits.
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
These petitions arose out of identical issues in respect of regularization of services of the petitioners-workmen. It is pertinent to note that the said issues have been dealt with and decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union,1 wherein in clause 12.1 reads as under:
"12.1 After considering the decisions cited before us, the following principles emerge:
(A) No regularisation or permanency can be effected de hors the statutory provisions or the guidelines.
(B) Long service put in by the workmen itself may not be a ground to regularise services of ad hoc/temporary workmen against the sanctioned set up without following statutory procedure of recruitment. At the most, Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal can issue direction for consideration of absorption subject to availability of posts on the establishment.
(C) To avoid nepotism and corruption, no backdoor entry in service;
(D) Financial capacity of the local body to have additional burden is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind while ordering regularisation or absorption.
On the facts of the case, it is an admitted position that the petitioners-workmen were not appointed regularly and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, they cannot be regularized. However, looking to the fact that the petitioners-workmen have been continued for almost 11 years, as and when vacancy arises, the respondent-Municipality will follow the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid decision if the case of Amreli Municipality (supra) and shall extend the benefits to the workmen. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Since the petitions are disposed of, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.