The Industrial Tribunal awards mandated the regularization of service of daily wagers on completion of 720 days employment as a daily wager in three years, and the court upheld the entitlement of the workmen to this benefit.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel appears for and on behalf of the respondent on advance copy.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefits of regularization on completion of three years of service on the date of which he completed 720 days of employment in three years with the corporation. The foundation of this relief is based on an award of an Industrial Tribunal dated 19.12.1983, by which, the Tribunal in a dispute between the workman-employee by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and its' workmen in respect of the employees' demand to make them permanent, issued following directions :

“I direct the Corporation to make permanent the Rojamdari workmen who have joined the service in 1978 and thereafter and who have completed three years of service and those who will complete three years of service in future, provided they have completed 720 days of service such time. The Corporation to pay costs of Rs.50/- to the union.

Sd/- M.J. Kirpalani Secretary Sd/- G.S. Barot A'bad,

dt. 19th Dec.83 Industrial Tribunal”

The prayers in these petitions therefore rather than granting them the benefit which has been so granted from 27.09.2007, the regularization should be given in accordance with the directions issued by the Tribunal.

4. Mr. Beg learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.8287 of 2016 wherein the petitioners had comeforth for an identical relief. This Court by an order dated 10.04.2019, considered the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Special Civil Application No.10008 of 2013, which had passed the following order :

“4.1 On the other hand, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the contesting respondent workmen has submitted that, the concerned workmen were entitled to regularisation of service on completion of 720 days working as a daily wager in the period of three years, as per the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.146 of 1976 dated 28.07.1983, and more particularly Reference (IT) No.446 of 1981 dated 19.12.1983, and the said benefit was accordingly granted also by the Corporation itself vide office order dated 02.02.2006, however the effect thereof was given from the date of issuance of order, which according to the concerned workmen, ought to have been with effect from the completion of 720 days of service as daily wager in three years, which was much earlier. It is submitted that, since the principal controversy, as to whether the concerned workmen were entitled to the said benefit or not, was already adjudicated and there was no dispute in that regard, it was that benefit, which was capable of being computed in terms of money, for which recovery applications were filed, which are allowed by the Labour Court, on the basis of evidence led before it. It is submitted that, the Labour Court has rightly granted relief, which may not be interfered with by this Court.

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the workmen that, the office order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Corporation itself is based on the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.446 of 1981 dated 19.12.1983. As per the said award, on completion of 720 days of employment as a daily wager in three years, the concerned workmen are held to be entitled to regularisation of service, and the said award has been consistently followed by the Corporation, in all cases. Attention of this Court is also invited to the orders passed by the Corporation from time to time in that regard and also the orders passed by this Court, including an order dated 30.08.1991 duly signed by the Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara. It is submitted that, filing of this group of petitions itself is pick and choose policy of the Corporation, which may not be entertained by this Court. It is submitted tha