The court held that long-term employees engaged in essential tasks are entitled to regularization despite initial irregular appointments, emphasizing fair employment practices.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.161 of 2000 dated 20.08.2018, whereby the learned Reference Court has allowed the reference filed by the respondents seeking the benefit of the regularization and it was directed present petitioner to grant the said benefits from 19.12.2000 and the interregnum period was directed to be considered for notional benefits.

3. Gist of the case is that the respondents were working as a daily wagers Peon in the Octroi Department of petitioner- Municipality from 1999. The reference came to be filed being Reference IESO No.22 of 1999 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, wherein the stay was granted against the termination. Thereafter, the Regular Civil Suit No.12 of 2000 was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Basgsara-Vadiya, seeking stay against the apprehended termination, which was granted by the learned Civil Court on 09.01.2000. The said stay was granted for a period of 10 days and subsequently, the impugned reference being Reference IT No.161 of 2000 came to be filed, seeking the benefit of the regularization, which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.01.2012. Pending the reference mentioned hereinabove, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the complaint being Complaint IT No.19 of 2002 and 21 of 2002 under the provisions of Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act and also prayed for the stay against the termination, wherein the learned Court initially granted stay, however, subsequently disposed of the complaint as withdrawn. Again the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the complaint being Complaint No.7 of 2009 and 8 of 2009 in Reference IT No.161 of 2000 under Section 33 -A, which was also disposed of vide order dated 24.05.2012. Challenging the order passed in Reference IT No.161 of 2000, the writ petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.3892 of 2012, wherein this Court has passed an order dated 28.08.2017 allowing the said writ petition remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court has passed an award on 20.08.2018 allowing the said reference in favour of the respondents, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the petitioner - Municipality and learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the respondents.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh submits that the respondent was entered with the Municipality as a daily wager Peon and immediately the reference and complaints as well Civil Suits are filed seeking injunction against the termination. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh submits that on granting the injunction and the respondents’ services was protected and thereafter, the impugned reference filed for seeking the benefits of the regularization. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh submits that despite the fact that the respondent does not possess the minimum education qualification for the post and though they were entered with the Municipality as a daily wager, however, under the protection of the Court they served for the long time and thereafter have claimed for benefit of the regularization. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh submits that the learned Tribunal, while allowing the reference, has discarded the submissions made by the present petitioner that there is no sanctioned vacant post available in the set up and from 01.05.2001 Department of Octroi wa