IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for continuous service as per Circular No.371 and Section 25-B of the Act must be fulfilled for regularization, and benefits extended to similarly situated employees without legal basis cannot be relied upon for parity.

JUDGMENT :

1. Employer – Gujarat Vidhyut Board (erstwhile) now Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred as Corporation) has filed this petition challenging the award of Industrial Court, Rajkot dated 06.02.2017 in Reference (IT) No.79 of 2015 (Old Reference (IT) No.51 of 2004) wherein the petitioner was directed to count service of the respondent – employee as continuous in the establishment from his initial date of appointment.

2. Facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under:

2.1. Respondent employee was appointed on 05.06.1980 as Helper at 66 K.V. Sub Station, Kandla-Kutch. On 16.10.1982, the petitioner-corporation (erstwhile GEB) issued circular No.371 wherein, it was decided to consider individual employee’s services rendered on work charge establishment and/or on temporary basis, as continuous service if the terms and conditions of circular are fulfilled. It is case of the petitioner that the respondent employee worked as a temporary work charge Helper from 14.07.1983 to 14.09.1983 continuously i.e. 60 days before he was regularized as a permanent employee on 04.06.1984. The employee addressed a communication in the year 1986, with a request to consider his case for regularization from the date of joining. In response to communication of the employee, relying upon Circular No.371 dated 16.10.1982, a letter dated 28.01.1986 was addressed by petitioner replying that under the said circular, you would not be entitled to benefit. Thereafter, the employee raised dispute in the year 2004, raising demand of regularization from initial date of appointment registered as Reference (IT) No.51 of 2004, which was thereafter renumbered as Reference (IT) No.79 of 2015. Upon adjudication, Industrial Court, Rajkot directed the petitioner-corporation to count service of respondent-employee as continuous service in the establishment from his initial date of appointment, aggrieved by which, present petition is filed.

3. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner – employer and Mr. Kiritdev Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.1 – employee.

4. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Industrial Court, Rajkot dated 06.02.2017 is erroneous on the following grounds:

(i) Undisputedly, the employee’s services were regularized as permanent employee in the establishment w.e.f. 04.06.1984. Thereafter, the employee addressed communication dated 28.01.1986, seeking regularization from his initial date of appointment. It was replied under letter dated 28.01.1986, and informed that respondent-employee would not be entitled for regularization under GEB circular No.371. Since the said communication was not challenged by the respondent- employee, it was not open to raise a dispute before Industrial Court.

(ii) Further, though the service of the respondent-employee was regularized w.e.f. 04.06.1984, the dispute was raised in the year 2004, i.e. after 24 years. The Industrial Court therefore, erred in not considering the delay in raising the dispute. On this ground alone the award of Industrial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thus, the reference itself deserved to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches and acquiescence.

(iii) On merits, the respondent – employee had worked as temporary work charge helper from 14.07.1983 to 14.09.1983 continuously (only for two months). Thus, the employee had completed only 60 days before he was regularized as permanent employee on 04.06.1984. Circular No.371 of GEB, provides that for regularization, the employee is to work continuously for 240 days during period of 12 calendar months or 120 days during the period of 06 calendar months. In this case admittedly, neither the employee had worked continuously for 240 days during 12 calendar months nor he had completed 120 days during the period of 06 calendar months and, therefore, the benefits of the circular No.371 of GEB cannot be extended to him.

(iv) Placing reliance