The court's decision emphasized the importance of specific evidence and the consistent application of legal provisions in employment disputes.

ORDER :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, present appellant - original petitioner – employee has challenged the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition, by which, learned Single Judge, while dismissing the captioned writ petition, has upheld the award dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, below Exh. 18, in Reference (I.T.) No. 193 of 2014, by which, the claim of present appellant employee, who is working as conductor with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short) with regard to not extending the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days, has been rejected by relying upon the Clause – 20 of the Settlement, which was entered into between the Union and the Employer.

2. Short facts arise from the record are as under:

2.1. That present appellant – original petitioner – employee was appointed in the post of conductor in December, 1997; however, he was not extended the benefit of time scale as per the Settlement dated 21.12.1989 entered into between the workman’s Union and the Employer. It is the case of present appellant employee that he would be entitled for getting the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days from his initial appointment. It is also the case of the appellant employee that he was not deliberately placed as daily wager and was continued as “Badli worker” with the respondent corporation.

2.2. The appellant employee raised reference in the year 2014 claiming his rights from 1997. The said reference was rejected by order dated 17.10.2018, which was challenged before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of present case and various decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to “Badli Worker”, dismissed the writ petition.

2.3 Hence, this appeal.

3. Mr. Paresh Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – employee, has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have committed grave error in relying upon the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that the facts of present case on hand and the facts of those cases, which are dealt with by learned Single Judge, are different. By taking us through the cross-examination of the witness at Exh. 14, he would submit that the said witness has admitted that he had worked continuously and has also admitted that when the appellant employee was appointed as “Badli Worker”, the posts were sanctioned. He would submit that as per Clause – 20 of the settlement, the appellant employee would be entitled for the benefits since the appellant employee had completed 180 days in the year 1997. He would submit that learned Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the details of the sanctioned posts, seniority list etc. which ought have been produced by the respondent employer before learned Tribunal and, therefore, they cannot take advantage of the same. He would further submit that in such circumstances, adverse inference can be drawn against the employer. In support of his submissions, he has relied the decision in the case of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106. By taking us through Para – 17 of the said decision, he would submit that in absence of any documents, presumption would go in favour of the employee. He, therefore, would submit that the case, which has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not applicable to the facts of present case and, therefore, present appeal be admitted.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – Corporation, has supported the award passed by learned Tribunal as well as