Long-term service in essential duties warrants regularization despite initial temporary classification; termination without just cause violates employment rights.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference No. 4 of 2015, whereby directions were issued to the present petitioner to grant the benefit of permanency upon completion of 240 days from the date of the respondent’s initial appointment, i.e., 09.02.2000, to fix the regular pay scale, and to treat the benefits for the interregnum period as notional.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed on a daily-wage basis with the petitioner on 09.06.2000, and his services came to be terminated on 26.09.2002. The said termination was challenged by filing Reference No. 42 of 2003, which was partly allowed in favour of the respondent on 13.08.2012, whereby directions were issued to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 14795 of 2012 and allied matters before this Court challenging the said award. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent was reinstated on 10.01.2013. Subsequently, the petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023. Upon reinstatement, the respondent filed a second reference being Reference (T) No. 4 of 2015, seeking the benefit of regularization, which was allowed in favour of the respondent, and the same is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Tushar Sheth for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Sheth submits that as the appointment was made without following the due recruitment rules and he was reinstated in view of the award passed by the learned labour Court. Learned advocate Mr.Sheth submits that without considering the same, the learned labour Court has awarded the Reference in favour of the respondent therefore, the same is required to be set aside by allowing the present petition.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya, appearing for the respondent, submits that the petitioner had been serving since 2000 and, pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court granting continuity of service, he was reinstated on 10.01.2013. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya that the learned Labour Court, after considering all the evidence on record, rightly granted the benefit of permanency. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya further submits that in a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, and in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Dwarka Municipality vs. Mantri, Jamnagar Jilla Majdoor Sangh , reported in rendered in the Special Civil Application No.3556 of 2021, which has been afÏrmed by the Division Bench of this Court, identically situated employees were granted the benefit of regularization. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid settled position, no interference is warranted, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon examining the reasons recorded, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent has been serving with the petitioner since 09.06.2000 and, after his termination on 26.09.2002, was reinstated on 10.01.2013 pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, which also granted the benefit of continuity of service along with the direction for reinstatement. The learned Labour Court has observed in the impugned order