ORDER :

1. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara below Exh.18 in Reference (I.T.) No.198 of 2014, whereby the reference, with regard to not extending the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days, has been rejected.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed in April, 1998 as a Conductor however, he was not extended the benefit of time scale as per the settlement dated 21.12.1989. He has submitted that thereafter, the benefit of time scale was given in 2010 and the reference of industrial dispute indicates that he has claimed the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days from his initial appointment. He has submitted that the respondent authority did not place the petitioner as a daily wager and continued him as Conductor. He has submitted that the petitioner was denied the benefit of time scale since the settlement provides that after completion of 180 days, daily wager is to be placed in time scale hence, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts in its true perspective and, therefore, it is urged that the impugned award may be set aside.

2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the Tribunal is impressed with regard to the delay in raising the industrial dispute however, such view expressed by the Tribunal is incorrect since non-extending the benefit of time scale would be a continuous cause. Further, it is submitted that the respondent authority did not produce anything, which would show that they had prepared any seniority list of daily wagers and the post was not vacant and in absence of such details, the Tribunal should not have rejected the reference.

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Naidu for the respondent has submitted that the issue is covered by catena of the decisions of this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgement dated 18.09.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.11717 of 2014 and allied matters, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 04.07.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1185 of 2014. He has submitted that for claiming the benefit under the settlement of 1989, there are three stipulations provided in Clause-20, such as after completion of 180 days as daily wager, the availability of the confirmed vacant post and seniority of the confirmed employees and only on satisfaction of these three conditions, the benefits of time scale can be extended.

3.1 Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that there is also delay in raising the industrial dispute since the petitioner is claiming the benefit of time scale w.e.f. 1999. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner was appointed as Badli Worker in 1998 and he never raised any dispute to convert him as a daily wager so that he could be extended the benefit of time scale. It is also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has also considered the aspect of delay in raising the industrial dispute and hence, the writ petition may be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was engaged as a Badli Worker since April, 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was entitled to the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days, he was not granted the same.

6. The Court has perused the terms of reference as stated in the impugned award and the same reveals that the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute for not extending the benefit of time scale to him after completion of 180 days from year 1998-99. The dispute has been raised in the year 2014. It is not disputed that the claim of time scale is governed by the Settlement of 1989. The aforesaid settlemen