K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. Aloria, learned advocate for petitioner and Ms. Rina Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In present petition, the petitioner board has challenged the award dated 30.9.2015 passed by learned Labour Court at Mehsana in Reference (LCMD) No. 2 of 2008 (old no.7/1997) whereby the learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to regularise service of workman Mr. P.N. Modi with effect from 1.5.1999 in the category of/on the post of Helper and to also regularise service of workman Mr. B.K.Patel with effect from 1.11.1990 in the category of/on the post of Electrician and to grant consequential benefits of regular and permanent workman with effect from 1.1.2012 with further clarification that the period from 1.5.1999 to 1.12.2012 shall be considered notional.

3. So far as factual backdrop is concerned it has emerged from the record and rival submissions that 2 workmen of present petitioner board raised industrial dispute that their service should be regularised and they should be treated as regular and permanent employee and consequential benefit should be granted.

3.1 The appropriate government referred the said demand for adjudication to learned Labour Court.

3.2 The workmen filed statement of claim before learned Labour Court with the allegation that one of the 2 workmen i.e. Mr. P.N. Modi claimed that considering the fact that he has been working regularly and continuously with the board as Helper since April, 1989 his service should be regularised in the category of/on the post of Helper. The 2nd workman i.e. Mr. B.K. Patel demanded that his service should be regularised and he should be treated regular and permanent workman in the category of/on the post of Electrician as he has been working in the said category since November, 1990. The claimants alleged that though they rendered regular and continuous service for such long period they are not treated as permanent employee. The claimants alleged that they have been serving with the opponent board as Helper and Electrician since 1989 and 1990 respectively and that they have rendered service regularly and continuously and during entire period they have worked for more than 240 days in each year and despite vacancy their services have not been regularized. They also alleged that duties and functions which they perform are of permanent and perennial nature and though service of other similarly placed workmen have been regularized, they are victimized and similar benefits are not granted.

3.3 The opponent opposed the reference. In its written statement the opponent board generally denied the allegations but did not dispute the assertion that Mr. Modi has been working in the category of/on the post of Helper and Mr. Patel has been working in the category of/on the post of Electrician. The board however disputed that the claimants had not worked for 240 days in every year. The board claimed that the said claimants have been working on daily wage basis and that their demand for regularization and status of permanent workman is not justified.

3.4 Upon conclusion of pleadings by both sides, learned Labour Court received oral and documentary evidence and heard rival submissions. After considering material available on record, learned Labour Court passed award with above mentioned directions.

4. Mr. Aloria, learned advocate for the petitioner board vehemently assailed the award and submitted that the workmen did not place any material on record to prove that they have worked for more than 240 days in any year. He submitted that the claimants were engaged and they were working on daily wage basis and that therefore their demand for regularization and status of permanent workman was not justified and should not have been granted. Learned advocate for the petitioner board also submitted that the claimants were not engaged after following procedure for selection and they were engaged irregularly and that therefore their cl