Point of Law: rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees dehors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee (whether called a casual, ad hoc or daily-rated employee) or payment of regular salaries to them.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned award dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Rajkot in Reference (L.C.D.) No.12/2002, whereby the Labour Court has ordered to regularize the respondents within 30 days and to make them permanent as Class-IV employees.

2. It is the main contention of the petitioner that it is an Agriculture Produce Market Committee established under the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act and Rules framed thereunder. It has referred to the facts of the case and has contended that the workmen (respondents no.1 to 3) are serving in the Marketing Committee only purely on temporary basis as Watchman (Chowkidar). The grievance of the workmen is that they should be made permanent and the benefits of 5th Pay Commission be extended to them and difference of arrears be paid to them. It is also contended that the workmen have filed an appeal before the Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Financing, State of Gujarat bearing Appeal No.28 to 30 of 2001 in which they have stated that three employees namely Suresh Vagasia, Raju Sakia and Ashwin Valan were made permanent, whereas, they were not made permanent and as per the Rule No.7, 22 employees who are permanent employees are paid higher pay scale, whereas, the respondents were not paid the same and not treated at par with others. It is also prayed in the appeal that they should not be removed from their original posts and as per Rule 7, they should be paid with par to other permanent employees from 3.5.2001.

2.1 It is also contended by the petitioner that the Director, Agriculture Produce Marketing & Rural Financing, State of Gujarat has dismissed all those appeals filed by the workmen and, thereafter, the workmen have also approached before the Conciliation Officer, Rajkot by filing Application No.40 of 1999 which was withdrawn by the workmen. It is also contended that thereafter, the workmen through Union made an application to the Deputy Labour Commissioner which came to be rejected by the Labour Commissioner by order dated 10.06.2002. Thereafter, the workmen have made a Reference to the Labour Court wherein claim statement was filed by the workmen alleging that they have completed 240 days as Class IV employee and claiming pay scale of Class IV employee i.e. Rs.750-Rs.940 as a permanent employees with other consequential benefits.

2.2 It is contended by the petitioner that they have filed defence statement at Exhibit 8 wherein they have submitted that the workmen were appointed as watchman as and when need arises. It is also undisputed that as per Rules and Regulations, there is restriction of spending 40% of the income and the Director by order dated 02.01.2001 has permitted to revise schedule to regularize the employees in which item-4 of watchman was not mentioned. It is contended that the post of watchman is not sanctioned and, therefore, there is no question of making the present workmen as permanent employees. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court has not considered the facts and circumstances and materially erred in granting the prayer of regularization of the workmen and directing the petitioner to make respondents as permanent Class IV employees. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award.

3. Heard Mr.G. M. Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Dipesh Chhaya, learned advocate for the respondents through video conferencing.

4. Mr. G. M. Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the claim of the workmen to be appointed on permanent post cannot be acceded to as they were appointed on the post of watchman on the basis of as and when their services needed and no such posts are sanctioned. He has submitted that since the workmen were not appointed through regular selection process and there is no sanctioned post of watchman available, there is no question of granting any