Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Mahuva Nagar Palika – Petitioner
Versus
Saurashtra Shramik Sangh and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 10690 of 2022, Special Civil Application No. 1060 of 2023, Special Civil Application No. 3434 of 2013
Decided On : 05-04-2024
Industrial Tribunal - Regularisation of Workmen - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 - The judgment discusses the regularisation of workmen who have been working for more than 10 years, the unfair labour practices of the employer, and the obligation of the State Government to sanction posts to fill up vacancies in the General Hospital at Mahuva. The court directs the State Government to consider sanctioning the posts within six months, regularise the services of the workmen on the sanctioned posts, and allocate the burden of arrears between the Nagarpalika and the State Government based on the administration takeover date of the hospital.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen, employed from 1988 to 1999, sought permanent employment after their services were terminated in 2002. The Industrial Tribunal found that the workmen had been working continuously for more than 10 years and that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workmen were entitled to regularisation as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and directed the State Government to consider sanctioning the posts to fill up vacancies in the hospital within six months. The court also allocated the burden of arrears between the Nagarpalika and the State Government based on the administration takeover date of the hospital.
Issues: The main issue was the regularisation of the workmen who had been working for more than 10 years and the obligation of the State Government to sanction posts to fill up vacancies in the hospital.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the workmen were entitled to regularisation as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and that the State Government had an obligation to sanction the posts to fill up vacancies in the hospital within six months.
Final Decision: The court directed the State Government to consider sanctioning the posts to fill up vacancies in the hospital within six months, regularise the services of the workmen on the sanctioned posts, and allocate the burden of arrears between the Nagarpalika and the State Government based on the administration takeover date of the hospital.
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. These petitions are arising out of the award dated 21.08.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006.
2. Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013 is filed by the workmen working on the post of Ward boy, Maid Servant, Sweeper, clerk, Computer Operator, X-ray technician and Assistant Laboratory Technician in Mahuva hospital run by Mahuva Nagarpalika at the relevant time and thereafter taken over by the State Government with a prayer to continue the workmen in the current service as Hospital staff and to absorb them in hospital staff for their long service of time period extending from 14 to 25 years in the same hospital being taken over by the Government of Gujarat from Mahuva Nagarpalika with the status of General Hospital.
3. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013 by order dated 22.03.2013 granted status-quo regarding the service conditions of 29 petitioners which has continued till date. It was prayed to direct the Tribunal to proceed with Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006 which was preferred by the petitioner for their demand of permanent employment. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2015 directed the Tribunal to consider the request of the petitioner for expeditious hearing of Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006.
4. Brief facts of the case are that by Resolution No. 4 dated 9.08.2002 passed by the Chairman of Medical Board, appointment of 33 workmen working in the hospital run by Mahuva Nagarpalika was extended for further three months. The Collector by order dated 19.12.2002 stayed the execution of Resolution No. 4 and the Collector thereafter by order dated 22.07.2003 directed the Nagarpalika to forward the proposal for additional sanction since the posts were concerning to the hospital and continued the stay granted on 19.12.2002.
4.1 Being aggrieved, 33 workmen approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 11818/2003 challenging the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the Collector against the termination of their employment. This Court initially granted stay but by order dated 17.11.2005 dismissed the petition.
4.2 Being aggrieved, 33 workmen preferred LPA No. 1634/2005 challenging the order dated 17.11.2005. By order dated 21.1.2014, LPA was disposed of without entering into the merits on the statement made by the workmen that they have already approached the Industrial Tribunal. However, the workmen never challenged the termination order which is confirmed before this Court.
4.3 Workmen also filed Special Civil Application Nos. 9739/2006, 9740/2006 and 9770/2006 seeking regularisation of their service. This Court by order dated 4.05.2006 directed the workmen to approach the Director of Municipalities or Industrial Tribunal.
4.4 Workmen therefore, filed Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006 for regularisation without challenging the order of termination.
4.5 Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the workmen also approached the Director of Municipalities who by order dated 12.12.2008 rejected the application for regularisation filed by the workmen.
4.6 The State Government by resolution dated 14.09.2012 took over the administration of Mahuva hospital from Mahuva Nagarpalika including the staff and with effect from 01.05.2013, charge of the hospital rests with the State Government.
4.7 Thereafter, workmen filed Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013 seeking direction against the Government to regularise them in service.
4.8 By order dated 04.02.2014, status- quo was granted by directing the Government authority to pay salaries to the workmen during the pendency of this petition.
4.9 This Court by order dated 4.3.2014 in Civil Application No. 1100/2014 in Special Civil Application No. 3434/2014 after considering the facts and circumstances, directed the State Government to pay the salary of the workmen and to continue to pay them regularly till the pendency of the petition.
4.10 It appears that thereafter the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Bha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of workmen to regularisation as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the obligation of the State Government to sancti....
Prolonged continuous service of employees necessitates regularization irrespective of absence of sanctioned posts, reinforcing the obligation of fair employment practices by the state.
Private companies cannot use discretion to justify unfair labour practices, and past financial status as a sick unit does not prevent directions of permanency that may increase financial burden.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, mandating permanent status and equal pay for work of similar nature.
Regularization of service requires proof of unfair labor practices; long service alone does not confer entitlement without due procedure.
Labour Law – Unfair labour practice - when similarly situated workmen have been grated permanency by the University, non-granting of the same to the present workmen is nothing but an unfair labour pr....
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
Equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people.
The court confirmed that permanent employment requires formal appointment procedures, and mere long service does not grant entitlement to regularisation without mandated legal protocols.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
