Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
Savarkundla Municipality – Petitioner
Versus
Late Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Kodawala Lhs Of Decd. Rekhaben Sureshbhai Kodawala & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 15247 of 2023
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Regularisation - Industrial Tribunal Award - Gujarat Municipalities Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner, a Municipality, challenged an award of the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularisation of a deceased workman and the grant of consequential benefits. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the issue of regularisation had been previously considered and confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and therefore dismissed the petition. [ISSUES] The main issue was the regularisation of the workman and the availability of sanctioned posts. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court relied on previous decisions and held that unfair labour practices by the employer entitled the workman to be absorbed as a permanent employee. [FINAL DECISION] The petition was dismissed, and the award of the Labour Court was confirmed. Notice was discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Mr.Divyesh Sejpal, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms.Suman Motla, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. Municipality as petitioner has filed this petition challenging an award of Industrial Tribunal Bhavnagar, dated 25.01.2022, in Reference (IT) No.59 of 2011 wherein, the petitioner was directed to grant benefit of regularisation to the respondent-workman from the date of joining till the date of his death i.e. 31.12.2020. It was also directed that all consequential benefits from the date of regularisation till the date of his death with arrears from 05.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 shall be given to legal heir (widow) of the deceased. Benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.02.2008. The period, from the date of joining i.e. 01.02.2008 till 05.02.2011, is to be considered as notional and arrears are directed to be paid from 05.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 to the legal heir (widow) of the deceased.
3. Facts, in brief, as referred in the petition, are as under:
The respondent-workman was working as Driver with Municipality from 01.02.2008 as Daily wager. For his regularisation, he raised dispute before Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar registered as Reference (IT) No.59 of 2011. Upon adjudication, Reference came to be allowed in favour of the respondent-workman and the petitioner was directed to grant benefit of regularisation to respondent-workman from the date of joining i.e. 01.02.2008 till date of death of deceased i.e. 31.12.2020 with all consequential benefits. The period, from the date of joining i.e. 01.02.2008 till 05.02.2011, is to be considered as notional and arrears are directed to be paid from 05.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 to the legal heir (widow) of the deceased. Aggrieved by the directions, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Divyesh Sejpal, learned advocate for the respondent- workman.
5. Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner-municipality has submitted that award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous because it has ignored the provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act. There is no work available with the Municipality and therefore, question of regularisation would not arise. Most importantly, there are no sanctioned post available on which, the respondent can be regularised and regularisation of the workman would amount to creation of post, which is not permissible under law. Further, initial appointment of respondent-workman was backdoor entry and Municipality is to recruit their employees after following recruitment process, which was not done in the present case and therefore, they are not entitled for regularisation.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Divyesh Sejpal, learned advocate for respondent-workman submitted that the issue under consideration is no more res-integra in view of decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters. Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters was subject matter of appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No.1398 of 2022 and other connected matters, wherein the appeals filed by the petitioner- Municipality were rejected. Even Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 1606 of 2024 by the petitioner-Municipality was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2024.
6.1 Learned Advocate submitted that against the common order dated 25.03.2022, in Special Civil Application 19336 of 2017, one more Letters Patent Appeal No.1438 of 2022 was preferred and the same was dismissed confirming the order dated 25.03.2022. Thus, the order dated was confirmed in both the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1398 of 2022 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1438 of 2022. In one another order in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No 1261 of 2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court, permitted to prefer review before this Court. The Misc. Civil Application (for revie
Unfair labour practices by the employer entitled the workman to be absorbed as a permanent employee.
Unfair labour practices by the employer, failure to fill permanent posts when available, and the obligation of the employer to seek sanctioned set-up for regularisation.
Unfair labour practices entitle a workman to be absorbed as a permanent employee, and the failure to provide sanctioned posts does not absolve the employer from its obligations.
The court upheld the award for the regularisation of a municipal worker, affirming that failure to fill permanent posts constitutes unfair labor practice, justifying regularisation despite initial ir....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the employer to absorb workmen as permanent employees when posts are available, based on the principles of unfair labor practi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure of an employer to fill permanent posts, while continuing to employ workers on a temporary or daily wage basis, constitutes unfair ....
Unfair labour practices entitle workers to be absorbed as permanent employees, and the obligation of the employer to seek sanctioned set-up for regularisation.
The duty of the employer to seek sanctioned set-up to accommodate workmen for permanency benefits when the work performed is of a perennial nature.
Unfair labour practices entitle workers to be absorbed as permanent employees when the employer avoids filling permanent posts and continues to employ workers on temporary or daily wage basis.
The obligation of the employer to fill permanent posts and the unfair labor practices involved in keeping employees on temporary or daily wage basis entitles the workman to be absorbed as a permanent....
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
