The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:

“(A) A writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash and set aside award dated 10/03/2017 passed by Industrial Court, Bharuch in Reference (IT) No. 161 of 2001 and further may be pleased to reject the Reference of respondent No. 1.

(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the award dated 10/03/2017 passed by Industrial Court, Bharuch in Reference (IT) No. 161 of 2001.

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted.”

2. Brief facts arising for the consideration of this petition is as under:

2.1. The respondent No. 3 to 11 are working as daily wagers since 1984 and despite the fact that service of 15 years has been completed, they have not been regularized in the Nagarpalika. The details of each workman is stated herein-below:

2.2. Seeking the prayer for regularization, the reference was made to the learned court which was dismissed due to absence of the respondent-workman on 23.02.2012. On filing the application under Rule 26(A) of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat Rules) the reference was restored and the same was allowed by the learned labour court and further directions were issued that from 01.04.2017 they are required to be paid with regular pay scale. Prior to 01.04.2017, the learned labour court has denied for the arrears however, their services was directed to be considered for notional benefits. Said award dated 10.03.2017 is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi B. Shah for the respondent.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela submits that previously learned labour court has rejected the reference not only recording his absence but after considering the merits as well. Learned labour court has come to the conclusion that the demand of regularization is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned court as therefore, reference was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2012. Learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela submits that thereafter, without assigning any further reasons, learned labour court has allowed the reference which was restored on the application of the workman and therefore, the petition is required to be allowed and the award of the learned labour court dated 10.03.2017 is required to be set aside.

4. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Ravi B. Shah submits that despite the order passed on 10.03.2017 and in absence of any stay granted by this Court, the petitioner has remained idle and no implementation of the award is made. Learned advocate Mr. Ravi B. Shah submits that in the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner he admitted that all the petitioners are serving since long and has completed 240 days as well as the muster roll was also produced supporting the version of the witness and therefore, learned labour court has not committed any error in allowing the reference. Respondent further submits that all the respondents are serving since 1984, 1985