Point of Law: Merely because, there is Government Resolution to consider the person who has continuously served for three years being considered for the permanent appointment as Class IV servant, it does not ipso facto creats any right in favour of the workman to be considered as permanent employee. The other resolutions granting various benefits of permanency in completion of certain period of service needs to be taken into consideration.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [L.C.D.] No.9 of 2004 whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioners to regularize the service of the respondent as Class – IV employee in the category of peon w.e.f. 09.02.1985 and also to regularize consequential benefits including the difference of arrears of pay, dearness allowance etc. w.e.f. 09.02.1985 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers :-

A. Admit the present Special Civil Application.

B. Allow the present Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of cerritary or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the award dated 22.06.09 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [LCD] 9/04 annexed as ANNEXURE – E by way of holding that the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record, against the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without jurisdiction in the interest of justice.

C. Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the award dated 22.06.09 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [LCD] 9/04 annexed as ANNEXURE – E in the interest of justice.

D. Call for the record and proceeding of the case bearing Reference [LCD] 9/04 from the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhju by way of passing appropriate orders in the interest of justice.

E. Pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent herein – workman has approached the Labour Court contending that he was serving as peon w.e.f. 09.02.1982 and was being paid monthly salary of Rs.1136/- and he was appointed by petitioner - Corporation herein vide order dated 09.02.1982. It is contended that he was performing duty as peon on permanent basis. That, there is set-up of peon in the institution and the post is vacant. It is also contended that the opponents No.1 and 2 (petitioners No.1 and 2 herein) were not regularizing the service of the workman and they were not making permanent him. It is contended that even the workman is treated as part-time workers and it is shown that the work, only for four hours per day, being taken from the workman. However, in reality, he is working as full time worker. It is contended that the workman is entitled to get regularization of service for the post of peon with ancillary benefits. It is also contended that had the workman appointed on the post of peon in the pay scale of Rs.194 – Rs.272 than he could have got Rs.7,000/- per month and the respondents herein have not given any benefits of the permanent employee to the workman. It is contended that the workman has worked for 240 days in every year and, therefore, he is entitled for regularization of his service on permanent basis. It is alleged that the necessary legal notice was issued to the respondents, but they have not given positive response to him and, therefore, he has filed the reference. It is further contended that the petitioners herein need to follow the Government resolutions and they have to regularize the service of the workman with ancillary benefits of salary and dearness allowance along with the interest thereof.

3. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Ratod, learned counsel for the respondent through video conferencing.

4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner – Corporation is a corporate body and it has followed the instructions of the Governme