Point of Law:Labour Law – Unfair labour practice - when similarly situated workmen have been grated permanency by the University, non-granting of the same to the present workmen is nothing but an unfair labour practice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner - Anand Agricultural University challenging the impugned award dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (LCD) (Demand) No.1 of 2008 (Old Reference (LCG) (Demand) No.8 of 1996), whereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference filed by the workmen and directed the employer to treate the concerned workman as permanent from 1990 and to pay Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Medial Allowance, benefit of leave encashment etc and also granted Rs.5,000/- to each as cost.

2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as the “employer” and the “workmen”.

3. The main grounds for challenging the impugned award are that the workmen were engaged as daily rated unskilled field labourers as and when the work was available and were being paid minimum wages as fixed by the State Government from time to time under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. It is contended by the employer that the workmen are not possessing the requisite qualifications for the post in question and are not engaged / appointed on the sanctioned vacant posts and their appointments are irregular and were made without following due selection process as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and hence, they are not entitled for regularization and pay scale at par with the regular permanent employees.

3.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court, under complete misconception about its jurisdiction, without any iota of evidence on record, on wholly illegal and erroneous approach and without jurisdiction passed the impugned award dated 17.7.2009 and directed the employer to treat the workmen as permanent employees from 1990 with all consequential benefits. It is also contended by the employer that the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that the daily wagers have no right for absorption, regularization or permanency in service de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment and de hors the Recruitment Rules. It is contended by the employer that the University is an educational institute fully aided by the State Government and is engaged in the educational activities and imparting the education of agriculture and allied science and humanities in the State of Gujarat. It is further contended by the employer that the University is having various agricultural research stations at different places in the State of Gujarat and for the purpose of discharging its duties and functions and to achieve the object under the Act, the University engages daily rated labourers for various agricultural activities. It is also contended by the employer that the State Government accorded 100% grant to the University and all the expenses including the expenses for the purpose of payment of salaries and wages of the employees of the University are being paid from the amount of grant received from the State Government. It is further contended by the employer that it being a grant-inaid institute, is required to obtain prior sanction of the State Government for the purpose of recruitment / appointment of the employees of the University. It is also contended by the employer that the University has to follow the procedure of selection by the Competent Selection Committee on the sanctioned vacant posts and it is having its own Recruitment Rules which provides designation, qualification, method of recruitment and other terms and conditions of the employment.

3.2 It is contended by the employer that the appointment of the workmen were not on sanctioned vacant post and they were engaged on daily basis and they are not entitled for regularization and pay scale at par with the regular permanent employees. It is contended by the employer that out of 15 labourers, 4 labourers had expired during the pendency of adjudication and service