The court recognized that long-standing employees performing essential duties are entitled to regularization despite initial temporary designations, emphasizing fairness in employment due to sustained contributions.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates Mr.Jwalit Soneji and Mr.Krutarth Pandya waives notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (Demand) Case No. 1 of 2004. By the said award, the learned Labour Court directed the present petitioner to consider the services of the respondent for the purpose of regularization with effect from 02.12.2004, the date of the Government Resolution issued by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Further, the petitioner was directed to pay the differential amount of pay from the date of the award within 30 days from the date of its publication. The Court also directed that the respondent be extended the benefits of regularization from 02.12.2004, and the arrears of salary be paid from the date of the said resolution. Additionally, the learned Labour Court directed that the respondent shall be entitled to consequential benefits such as pension, gratuity, and leave encashment from the date of joining. It was further observed by the learned Court that respondent No.6, namely Late Mr. Mansukhbhai Muljibhai Solanki died on 11.06.2016, during the pendency of the reference. Accordingly, the learned Court directed that the services of respondent No.6 be regularized with effect from 02.12.2004, and the differential wages be paid to his legal heirs. The terminal benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, were also directed to be paid from the date of his initial appointment. The pay fixation was ordered to be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents had been engaged by the petitioner department as Daily Wagers and had rendered services for a period exceeding 14 years. As they were not granted the benefits of permanency, they raised an industrial dispute, which culminated in Reference (LCD) No. 1 of 2004 before the learned Industrial Court. During the pendency of the said reference, interim directions were issued to the effect that the service conditions of the respondents shall not be altered and that status quo be maintained. Subsequently, the petitioner department produced the attendance records of the concerned workmen, purportedly indicating that as on the date of filing the reference, none of the respondents had completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year. On this basis, it was contended that the respondents were not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2004. Learned Court, after rejecting the evidence which are adduced by both the parties has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by granting the above mentioned reliefs, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya for the State and learned advocate Mr.Jwalit Soneji as well as learned advocate Mr.Krutarth Pandya for the concerned workmen.

5. Learned AGP, Ms. Pandya, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Labour Court has granted the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2004, which is based on the earlier Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. As per the said resolution, completion of 240 days of continuous service in each year is a mandatory precondition for regularization. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that that a specific contention was raised before the Labour Court to the effect that none of the respondents had completed 240 days of servi