Employees with over ten years of service are entitled to regularization under the approved scheme, despite arguments against retrospective application.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Supehia, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the caption writ petition, assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.192 of 2003 dated 22.02.2013. The appellant-University had assailed the said award, whereby the Tribunal had directed the University to regularize the respondent with effect from 01.05.2005.

2. The respondent was engaged as a daily rated labourer in the year 1977 and she was terminated in the year 1990, which culminated into reference proceedings being Reference No.1135 of 1990. The Labour Court, by the award dated 06.12.1995 ordered reinstatement with 25% back-wages, which has become final. Thereafter, she was reinstated in service. The Labour Court, in view of the Policy/Scheme of the appellant-University, has directed regularisation of the respondent with effect from 01.05.2005.

3. Learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan appearing for the appellant-University has submitted that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to order regularisation of the respondent workman in light of Third Schedule attached to section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. In this regard learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 429. By placing reliance on the judgment of Registrar General Of India And Anr. Vs. V.Thippa Setty And Ors., (1998) 8 S.C.C. 690, it is submitted that the regularization can only be ordered prospectively and not retrospectively, since the same would affect the service conditions of other employees.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has reiterated his submissions and while placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1, has submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge fell in error in ordering the reinstatement.

6. It is also contended that as per the Scheme of the appellant-University, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., (2001) 3 S.C.C. 574, and as considered by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent, who was working as a daily wager (Field Worker), cannot be regularised in service. Thus, it is urged that the learned Single Judge fell in error in confirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has referred to the deposition of the respondent workman, and thus, submitted that she has not competed 240 days in a year.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Premal S.Rachh appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge may not be disturbed, as the same is precisely passed in view of the Policy of the appellant-University, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra). It is submitted that in fact the Labour Court has ordered regularisation with effect from 01.05.2005, though she would be entitled for the same since the year 1987, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, since she completed ten years’ of service in 1987. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and award may not be interfered with.

8. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. The case of the respondent is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra).

9. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute. In paragraph No.4.2 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is categorically recorded that the respondent was engaged in 1977. She was discontinued on 16.10.1986, which was subj