The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularization of service and status of permanency cannot be granted solely based on long duration of service, and other factors such as sanctioned strength, clear vacancy, and recruitment procedure must be taken into account. The court emphasized the need for relevant evidence and pleadings to support claims for regularization and permanency.

K.M. Thaker, J.

1. The petitioner municipality has brought under challenge an award dated 7.8.2004 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 225 of 1998 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted demand Nos. 5 and 6 raised by the respondent workmen - union viz. that every three years from 1996-97 onwards, the municipality should provide coat/blazer and umbrella to the claimants. The learned Tribunal has also directed the petitioner municipality to regularize the service of 91 ad hoc employees who have worked for 240 days from the date on which they completed 240 days of service with the municipality and thereafter, one increment for every five years of service should be granted and the amount payable should be deposited in their respective provident fund account w.e.f. 1.4.2004. The petitioner municipality is aggrieved by the said award and direction. Hence, present petition.

2. The factual background involved in and leading to the submission of present petition are that the union raised and sponsored the claim and dispute on behalf of 91 employees engaged by the petitioner municipality in its health department as Safai Kaamdar (sweepers) on and from different dates starting from January 1991 and total length of their service with the petitioner municipality ranges from 20 years to 10 years. The said 91 workmen (hereinafter referred to as the "concerned workmen") are engaged and employed by the petitioner municipality since many years. The respondent union raised various demands and claims on behalf of the concerned workmen including claim for coat/blazer, umbrella, shops, shocks and other equipments necessary for sweeping work etc. Over and above the said demands the respondent union also claimed that the petitioner municipality should regularize the service of the concerned workmen and treat them as permanent workmen form the date on which the concerned workmen completed work for 240 days with the petitioner municipality and grant all consequential benefits available to permanent employees. Since municipality did not accept the said demand and claims industrial dispute was raised. The appropriate government referred the said demands and dispute for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order of reference dated 10.9.1998. The said reference was registered by the learned tribunal as Reference (IT) No. 225 of 1998. During pendency of the said proceedings appropriate government issued notification and modified the order of reference.

2.1 During the proceedings before learned tribunal the respondent union filed statement of claim justifying demand for regularization and permanency. So far as the demand seeking regularization and status of permanent workmen for the concerned persons is concerned, the respondent union stated in the statement of claim that some of the employees out of concerned 91 workmen were working with the petitioner municipality since 1984 while some other (i.e. about 5 persons) were employed since 1985 and about other 5 persons were working with the petitioner municipality since 1986 and about 13 persons were working with the petitioner municipality since 1987 and about 3 persons engaged by the petitioner municipality during period from 1988 to 1996 and about 5-6 persons were engaged during the period from 1997 to 2000. The respondent workmen claimed that most of the concerned workmen had worked with the petitioner municipality for more than 10 years and that therefore their demand for regularization in service and the demand for status of permanent workmen and consequential benefit was justified. The respondent workmen also claimed that for almost 2 decades the persons were continued on ad-hoc/temporary basis or on daily wage basis and they were deprived of benefit available to the permanent workmen. The respondent workmen also claimed that with passage of time from 1984 onwards the territorial limits of the municipality had increased and expanded and the work had inc