IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. Thakker, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Vs.
Ahmed Mahammad Shiyani - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 6117 of 2017
Decided On : 26-11-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes Act - Regularization of service - The learned Industrial Tribunal ordered the respondent to be considered permanent after 240 days of service, which was challenged by the State. The court found that the respondent worked as a part-time sweeper without a sanctioned post and thus was not entitled to regularization. (Paras 1, 6, 23)
(B) Employment Law - Rights of Employees - The court noted that mere completion of service does not grant permanent status without a sanctioned post, and part-time employees cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed as a part-time sweeper in 1996 and claimed permanent status after 240 days of service, despite the absence of a sanctioned post for such a role. The State contended that the respondent's position was not regularized due to the lack of evidence supporting a claim for permanent employment.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondent, being a part-time employee without a sanctioned post, could not be regularized, and the tribunal's order was quashed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondent was entitled to regularization after 240 days of service and the applicability of the Government Resolution regarding employment benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that part-time employees do not have a right to regularization or equal pay unless they are appointed against sanctioned posts, reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses do not confer substantive rights.
Result: Petition allowed, and the tribunal's award was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Gujarat has challenged the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Junagadh in Reference (IT) No.325 of 2012 (old case No.68 of 2011) dated 28.03.2016 by which, the learned Industrial Tribunal has ordered to consider the respondent as permanent from the date when the respondent completed 240 days of continuous service after joining of the respondent in the year 1996. As per the claim of the respondent, the respondent was appointed in the year 1996 at Ranavav, District Junagadh. Thereafter, in the year 1998 Ranavav Taluka became a part of Porbandar District after its bifurcation therefore, they were considered as a sweeper from the year 1998 in the Porbandar District.
2. It was stated in the statement of claim that there is a permanent sanctioned post, which is vacant and the work, which was taken from the present respondent was perennial in nature and though they were continued since long, they were not paid less than minimum wages. On giving the demand notice seeking permanent status, the petitioner has terminated the service of the respondent therefore, the petition was filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2011 in which, the directions were issued not to terminate the service of the respondent. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed before the learned labour Court, wherein the directions were issued to reinstate the respondent to the original post. Thereafter, the State has filed the petition challenging the aforesaid order passed in complaint case under Section 33 of the I.D.Act being Special Civil Application Nos.16032 of 2012 to 16046 of 2012 and on the statement of the learned AGP representing the State that respondents were relieved from the job, the above petitions were disposed of. However, during the course of hearing, pursis below Exhibit 12 was filed by the present respondent stating that they are continued on the service, which was also endorsed by the concerned advocate representing the petitioner therefore, demand was raised before the learned labour Court to give the permanent status to the respondent from the date of completion of 240 days from this appointment letter.
3. The petitioner herein is represented before the learned labour Court, however, no any evidence was laid before the learned labour Court and only the objection has been filed by way of written statement stating that they were daily wagers and their appointments were de-hors the policy of the Government therefore, they are not entitled for the relief which was prayed. Learned labour Court, after considering the evidence, has allowed the Reference partly directing the petitioner herein to consider their service as a permanent on completion of 240 days from 1996. It is further directed to consider the period from 1996 to date of award i.e. of 28.03.2016 as a notional and observed that the respondent herein will not be entitled for any arrears or any mandatory benefits for this period. The aforesaid order, directing to consider the service of the respondent as permanent from the date of completion of 240 days, is under challenge before this Court.
4. Heard the learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati for the petitioner-State and learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati submits that the respondent herein was serving as a part time sweeper, therefore, he cannot be placed on regular set up. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the respondent was appointed as a part time sweeper at Ranavav Taluka, Junagadh at the relevant point of time. The sanctioned set up post was available at the relevant point of time only for the post of peon, driver, clerk-cum-typist, junior clerk, surveyor/supervisor of the mine and Royalty Inspector. There was no post for part time sweepers. As the sanctioned set up post is always a post of permanent nature, the part time sweeper or part ti
Union of India and others vs. Ilmodevi
State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde
State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal
State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L.Kesari and others, reported in
Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or parity in salary with regular employees without a sanctioned post, regardless of the length of service.
Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or equal pay unless appointed against sanctioned posts, as per established legal precedents.
Point of law: Doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as adumbrated under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional sche....
Part-time employees cannot be regularised without a sanctioned post and proper recruitment process, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
Prolonged continuous service of employees necessitates regularization irrespective of absence of sanctioned posts, reinforcing the obligation of fair employment practices by the state.
Merely because, there is Government Resolution to consider the person who has continuously served for three years being considered for the permanent appointment as Class IV servant, it does not ipso ....
Regularization of employment should adhere to specific government policies, with part-time employees not entitled to claim rights reserved for full-time roles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.