SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
Savarkundla Municipality Through Its Chief Officer Naresh Bachubhai Muniya - Appellant
Vs.
Bhaveshbhai Pratapbhai Khuman & Anr. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 19785 of 2021
Decided On : 16-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vivek V Bhamare
For the Respondent: Mr. Brijesh K Ramanuj

IMPORTANT POINT
The obligation of the employer to accommodate and adjust its employees, and the concept of unfair labor practice entitling the workman to be absorbed as a permanent employee.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 25T - The court discussed the issue of regularisation of the respondent-workman's service and the obligation of the employer to accommodate and adjust its employees. The court referred to various decisions and legal provisions to establish that the employer's failure to fill permanent posts and continuing to employ workers on a temporary basis amounts to unfair labor practice, entitling the workman to be absorbed as a permanent employee. The court also highlighted the employer's obligation to follow strict seniority in accommodating the workman in vacant Class-IV posts within the establishment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-municipality challenged an award directing the regularisation of the respondent-workman's service and the award of seniority benefits. The petitioner argued that the award was erroneous due to the lack of sanctioned posts and financial difficulties faced by the municipality.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issue of regularisation had been previously considered and confirmed by the court in a similar case, and therefore, the present petition was dismissed. The court confirmed the award of the Labour Court and discharged the rule, directing the municipality to carry out the directions issued by the Tribunal for the respondent-workman.

Issues: The main issue was the regularisation of the respondent-workman's service and the validity of the award given by the Industrial Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the obligation of the employer to accommodate and adjust its employees, the concept of unfair labor practice, and the legal principles established in various decisions and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 25T, to support its decision to confirm the award of the Labour Court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, confirmed the award of the Labour Court, and directed the municipality to carry out the directions issued by the Tribunal for the respondent-workman.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Mr.Brijesh K. Ramanuj, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent-workman.

2. The petitioner-municipality has filed this petition challenging an award dated 05.10.2021 of Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.76 of 2012 wherein, the petitioner was directed to regularise the service of respondent-workman from 01.03.2011. Benefits of seniority, such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.10.2006. Labour Court directed that the service of respondent-workman from 01.10.2006 (date of joining) to 05.10.2021 (date of award) is to be considered as Notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period.

3. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent- workman.

4. Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner- municipality submitted that award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous because the award amounts to creation of post of Supervisor and thereafter to regularise his service by making necessary representation/ requisition before the appropriate authority. Creation of post is not permissible under the law. Further, there is no sanctioned post available for the post of Supervisor and therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous. He also highlighted the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner-municipality and thus, requested to quash and set aside the award.

4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner tendered a compilation of decisions to submit that when sanctioned posts are not available, Industrial Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioner to make requisition to the State Authority for sanctioning of the posts and to grant regularisation. Referring to the set-up of Petitioner-Municipality, learned advocate submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Supervisor and therefore, the award is erroneous.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent- employee submitted that the issue under consideration is no more res-integra in view of decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 and allied matters. Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 and allied matters were subject matter of appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023 and other connected matters, wherein the appeals filed by the petitioner- Municipality were rejected.

6. Considered the submissions and decisions relied upon. Submission of learned advocate for the respondent-workman that the issue involved in this petition was subject matter of proceedings before this Court and the same could not be disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Bhamare.

7. Further, it is noticed that in similar facts situation, co-ordinate bench of this Court in the order dated 05.08.2022, in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 , has held as under:

    “6. The petitioner-Municipality has placed on record information regarding sanctioned set up in the petitioner-municipality in a tabular form, wherein under various departments, 84 posts are reported to be vacant. Therefore, it is evident from the record of the Municipality itself that there are sanctioned vacant posts even within the establishment in various departments. A cursory reference to such tabular information would indicate that majority of such vacant posts are still vacant which are in Class-IV. In the opinion of the Court, regardless of the posts on which the respondent may be engaged with the petitioner-Municipality, the same being Class-IV post, there should not be any hesitation in accommodating such respondent- workman on any Class-IV post which has fallen vacant and in fact, the respondent-workmen who have litigated for such long years, would also be interested in the employment of the Municipality as Class-IV employees. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal are as per the requirements of the Municipality.

7. The only issue which re

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top