( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate, Mr. H. S. Munshaw, appearing on behalf of petitioner Corporation.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner " Corporation has challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference Demand No. 2 of 1999 dated 9. 1. 2006, whereby, the Labour Court has granted regular pay scale to the respondent workman in the post of Civil Supervisor and with consequential benefits w. e. f. 1. 9. 1994. The Labour Court has also made it clear that no difference of salary of scale of Civil Supervisor and consequential benefits should have to be paid to the workman. Meaning thereby that the respondent workman is not entitled to any difference of salary or arrears of salary w. e. f. 1. 9. 1994, but petitioner Corporation has to implement the award within a period of 30 days from the date of publication.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, appearing on behalf of petitioner " Corporation, submitted that respondent workman was not eligible for any relief and his appointment is without procedure. The respondent workman was temporary / ad-hoc / time bound appointed. He also submitted that there is no sanctioned / vacant post of Civil Supervisor available with the petitioner, therefore, regularization in the post of Civil Supervisor to a workman, who entered in the service by back door entry, the petitioner Corporation is not able to accommodate the respondent workman. The financial crisis of petitioner on the ground that out of 175 posts, 145 posts have been sent on deputation and the Corporation is likely to be wound up. For that, necessary resolution is already passed. He also submitted that before some time, the service of workman was terminated by Corporation and then, he raised dispute which was allowed by Labour Court. Against which, petition filed by Corporation was rejected. Therefore, the workman was reinstated in service. He also submitted that 7 posts were there, but due to administrative instructions from Government, one post has been abolished on 26. 2. 1996 because of cut of 20% in administrative expenses. He relied upon two decisions reported in 2004 (3) GLR 1841 (Full Bench of this Court) and another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 675. He read over before this Court the head note of Full Bench s decision and Para. 5 of the decision of the Apex Court. He also read over certain paragraphs of the award in question. Except that, no submission is made by learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw and no other decision has been cited and relied by him.

( 4 ) IN light of this, after considering the submissions made by learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, and after perusing the award in question, now I am examining the contentions raised by learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw on the basis of the facts which were on record before the Labour Court. It is necessary to note that respondent workman was appointed as Civil Supervisor on fixed salary of Rs. 750/- w. e. f. 22. 10. 1986. The petitioner Corporation has called the name by letter dated 7. 3. 1986 from Employment Exchange, Surendranagar of eligible candidates for the post of Civil Supervisor. Therefore, the names were sponsored by Employment Exchange and it was referred to the petitioner Corporation. It is necessary to note one important aspect that the petitioner Corporation called the names from Employment Exchange for the post of Civil Supervisor for direct recruitment under the provisions of Recruitment Rules in the scale of Rs. 425/800. This was the letter given to the employment exchange calling the name of eligible candidates for the post of Civil Supervisor in the scale of Rs. 425/800. It is also necessary to note that after receiving the names from Employment Exchange, a call letter to remain present in interview was issued by Corporation to the respondent workman, wherein also, scale was mentioned as Rs. 425/800. But, thereafter, the petitioner Corporation has changed the mind without any base and after interview, the fixed salary was suggested to the respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document