Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K. THAKKER, J.
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Mantri Shri, Active Labour Association – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 16254 Of 2024
Decided On : 03-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Regularization of service - Petition challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing regularization of a Class-IV employee's service from the date of publication - The Tribunal found unfair labor practices due to long-term employment without proper recruitment procedures. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 7)
(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that the essence of employment rights cannot be solely determined by initial terms, especially when the nature of the employment has evolved over time. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Industrial Disputes Act - The court noted that irregular appointments should not be permanently denied substantive rights accrued through continuous service, especially when sanctioned posts exist. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was initially appointed part-time but was reinstated following a labor court's award. The Tribunal directed regularization after 24 years of service.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision to regularize was upheld as the respondent had worked continuously and the employer had a sanctioned post.
Issues: Whether the respondent could claim regularization despite initial part-time status and absence of recruitment procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that continuous service and the existence of a sanctioned post justified the regularization, irrespective of initial appointment terms.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(M.K. Thakker, J.)
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in reference IT No.24 of 2016 dated 01.07.2024 whereby, the directions were issued to regularize the service of the present respondent on the post of Class-IV employee from the date of publication of award and previous period was directed to be consider for notional benefit.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent was initially appointed on part-time basis with Learning Development Centre. However, the Centre was closed and the present respondent was relieved from the service. Challenging the relieving of service, the reference came to be filed being the reference LCA No.445 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad which was partly allowed vide judgment and award dated 12.02.2008 and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
2.1. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the petition came to be filed before this Court being SCA No.10297 of 2008 which was partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2013 and the award was modified to the extent of granting the benefit of back wages and petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent without back wages. In compliance with the order dated 11.02.2013, the petitioner has reinstated the respondent on 08.03.2013. The second reference came to be filed by the respondent herein, being reference IT No.24 of 2016 seeking regularization of the service from the 01.04.2013. Learned Industrial Tribunal after considering the evidence led and the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties, has passed judgment and award directing the petitioner to regularize the service of the respondent from the date of publication of award and the notional benefit was granted for the period prior to that, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Bhati for the State.
3.1. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati states that the respondent was appointed on a part time basis and he was continued in the service in pursuance to the award passed by the learned labour court therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of regularization on the post of Class-IV employee. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati has relied on the communication dated 19.07.2019 and submitted that respondent himself has admitted that he was serving on part time basis and getting the monthly wages of Rs.14,800/-. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the pay slips which are annexed with the petition also suggests that he was paid according to the wages of the part time employee, therefore, the learned labour court has committed error in issuing the directions to regularize the service as a Class-IV employee.
3.2. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs Dayalal reported in 2011 (2) SCC 429 and Union of India Vs Imodevi reported in 2021 20 SCC 290 and submitted that only on satisfaction of condition i.e one is sanctioned post and other is appointment after following appropriate procedure, the benefit of regularization can be given to the employees. However, in the instant case, respondent was appointed without following recruitment process therefore, he cannot be regularized and be given the benefit of Class- IV employee. In view of the above submissions the learned AGP Ms.Bhati prays to set aside the impugned judgment and award and allow the petition.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned AGP Ms.Bhati and the reasons assigned by the learned Industrial Tribunal, it transpires from the record that initial appointment was made of the present respondent with Learning Development Center which is part of the State of Gujarat. On closing down of the aforesaid Centre the respondent was relieved from the service and thereafter, pursuant to the award passed by the learned labour court i
AI
Employment rights cannot be denied based on initial appointment terms when substantive rights accrue through long-term continuous service and sanctioned posts exist.
An employee's continuous service is recognized once a termination is set aside, impacting their eligibility for regularization despite initial appointment irregularities.
Long-term employees performing essential and continuous functions may claim regularization after a decade of service, despite previous procedural irregularities.
An employee's long and continuous service reinforces entitlement to regularization, regardless of initial temporary status, especially when compared to similarly situated colleagues.
The court reaffirmed that long-serving employees, despite irregular appointments, are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the importance of continuity of service without considering minor lapses ....
Long-term service and performance of duties similar to regular employees justify the regularization of daily wage workers, regardless of initial irregular appointment procedures.
Continuous service exceeding ten years entitles the employee to consideration for regularization, requiring adherence to prior court directives and government orders.
The court emphasized that long-serving employees misclassified as part-time should be considered for regularization under applicable government orders, ensuring adherence to principles of natural jus....
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
