1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award dated 6.1.1998 (Annex.-4) passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara whereby, an award was passed to declare the respondent workman regular on the post of Driver w.e.f. 1.4.1985.

3. As per facts of the case, the respondent workman Late Gopal was provided appointment on urgent temporary basis vide order dated 4.3.1974 for four months against the post of driver. He was allowed to continue on the said post as work charge driver but he was not given the permanent status or regularisation on the post of driver, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by him. After receiving report from the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for grant of regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.1985 to the respondent workman to the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara.

4. Before the Judge Labour Court, Bhilwara, a claim petition was preferred by the respondent workman Late Gopal in which it was specifically pleaded that he was appointed as work charge driver on temporary basis for four months on 4.3.1974 against the post and he continue on the said post but benefit of regularisation is not given to him inspite of the fact that a decision was taken by the respondent P.H.E.D. to regularise the work charge employees w.e.f. 1.4.1985. The Judge, Labour Court after taking into consideration entire facts of the case and the fact that respondent workman completed ten years of service passed an award in favour of respondent workman Late Gopal and issued direction to the petitioner department to grant regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.1985 with all consequential benefits.

5. In this writ petition, P.H.E.D is challenging the validity of award on various grounds. The main ground taken in the writ petition is that respondent workman cannot claim regularisation merely on the ground that he has completed ten years of service. Further, it is pleaded that respondent workman was provided temporary appointment for fixed term but he was allowed to continue on the post without regularity and no vacancy was in existence, therefore, as per petitioner department, the Judge, Labour Court committed an error while passing the award in favour of respondent workman and to direct the petitioner department to grant permanent/regular status to the respondent workman Late Gopal w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Upon above grounds, it is submitted that award impugned may be quashed.

6. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no perversity in the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court because the respondent workman was provided appointment on the post of Driver w.e.f. 4.3.1974 though appointment was for four months but respondent workman Late Gopal was allowed to work on the said post, therefore, after completion of ten years, as per work charge employees, he became entitled for regularization, therefore, it is submitted that the award passed by the Judge Labour Court does not require any interference because it is based upon documentary evidence and the fact that the respondent workman worked for more than ten years.

7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the award impugned so also perused Annex.-1 office order dated 4.3.1974 whereby, the respondent Gopal was provided appointment on work charge basis against the post of driver initially for four months and there is no dispute with regard to continuity of service on the said post for near about ten years, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any perversity or illegality in the award impugned whereby, the petitioner department had directed to grant regularisation to respondent workman Late Gopal after completion of ten years w.e.f. 1.4.1985.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka 61 Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that after completion of ten year service the employee became entitled