The court's decision reaffirmed the principle that the issue of regularization and entitlement to benefits for temporary employees is governed by previous orders and should be considered in light of relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constituting of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the award dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.23/2003 be quashed and set aside.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. T.R. Mishra for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan appearing for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the petitioner is a Body Corporate established and constituted under the provision of Section 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) for the State of Gujarat, which is an educational institute fully aided by the State Government. It is submitted that all the regular/ permanent employees are being selected and appointed in accordance with Recruitment Rules after following due procedure of selection on sanctioned vacant posts and the daily wagers do not hold any post. It is contended that the respondent no.1 was engaged on 07.12.1994 as Laboratory Boy on daily wage basis, whereas the respondent nos.2 and 3 were engaged as Sweepers purely on temporary basis and are being paid minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. At this stage, it is submitted that the respondents have raised industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, which has been numbered as Reference (IT) No.23/2003 claiming permanency in service from the date of completion of 240 days with all benefits payable to permanent employees and also claimed arrears. It is submitted that the respondents filed statement of claim, Exh.3 before the Industrial Tribunal inter alia stating that the respondents are working since long and they are discharging their duties of permanent nature. It is also contended that they are continuously working for more than 10 years with 240 days continuous service in each year and yet they have not been made permanent and, hence, the said act of the petitioner amounts to unfair labour practice. It is contended that the petitioner filed its written statement, Exh.19 and, thereafter, parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Industrial Court and after considering the material placed before the Industrial Tribunal, the Tribunal passed impugned award, by which, the petitioner is directed to treat the respondents as permanent employees from the date of Reference and grant grade pay, dearness allowances and other allowances from the date of award i.e. 09.01.2019. It is also observed that the benefit of permanency shall be treated as notional and no arrears are to be paid till the award become enforceable. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the said award.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan has assailed the impugned award mainly by contending that the respondents were engaged as daily rated unskilled labour purely on temporary and adhoc basis without following due process of selection and not as per the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled for regularization and pay scale as claimed by them. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the terms of the Reference and the Tribunal cannot enlarge the scope of the Reference nor could deviate therefrom. Learned advocate at this stage would further submit that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant permanent status to the respondents on their respective post and to grant pay scale dehors the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the fact that unless the post is sanctioned by the State Government and is vacant, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to create post and regularization of services of the daily wagers.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauha