The regularization of daily wage workers is justified when employers exploit temporary employment without filling available permanent posts, constituting an unfair labor practice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Though served, none appeared for the respondents. However, considering the fact that the issue involved in this petition is identical to Special Civil Application No.15247 of 2023, this petition is also heard and decided finally today.

2. Municipality as petitioner has filed this petition challenging an award of Industrial Tribunal dated 30.01.2023, in Reference (IT) No.102 of 2011 wherein, the petitioner was directed to grant benefit of regularisation to the respondent- workman from 15.02.2007 (date of joining). Benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 15.02.2007. The period, from the date of joining till the date of reference, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period.

3. Facts, in brief, as referred in the petition, are as under:

The respondent-workman was working as Valveman/Pumpman with Municipality from 15.02.2007 as Daily wager. For his regularisation, he raised dispute before Industrial Tribunal registered as Reference (IT) No.102 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 the respondent-workman from 15.02.2007 (date of joining). Benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 15.02.2007. The period, from the date of joining till the date of reference, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. Aggrieved by the directions, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner and 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, 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 A