JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 111 in Reference (I.T.) No. 11 of 2011, 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. Songara for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed on April, 1997, 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 on 20.12.2007 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 on time scale and continued him as a Badli worker. 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.

3. 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.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Songara has submitted that one of the employees has been granted the benefit of time scale after he agreed to treat the intervening period to be treated as notional. Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner may not be discriminated.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hamesh Naidu appearing for the respondent no. 1, while placing reliance on the judgment 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 judgment and order dated 04.07.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185 of 2014, has submitted that in similar set of facts while considering the similar argument and identical issue, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the award passed by the Tribunal conferring the benefits of time scale on the completion of 180 days. 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 a 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. He 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. 1997. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner was appointed as a Badli Worker in 1997 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.

6. 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.

7. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was engaged as a Badli Worker since April, 1997. 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 grant