Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29526 of 2017

Petitioner :- M/S City Municipal Board Ghaziabad

Respondent :- Labour Court 1st Ghaziabad And 15 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akshat Sinha,Birendra

Kaushik,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Heard Sri P.K. Singh alongwith Sri Kushagra Vaibhav Singh

learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for

the State respondents and Sri Akshat Sinha learned counsel for

the respondents-workmen.

Present writ petition has been filed by the employer against the

award dated 15.7.2016 passed by the Labour Court Ghaziabad

in Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1992. By that award, the Labour

Court granted relief of regularisation to all the respondents-

workmen from the date of their initial engagement in the year

1989 that too with consequential benefits, while answering the

following reference made to it vide order dated 13.2.1992.

"Kya sewayojkon dwara sallagn parishisht me ankit 14

shramiko ko niyamit/sthaayi ghoshit kiya jana chahiye ? Yadi

han, to kis tithi se tatha kis vivran sahit?"

Pleadings were exchanged and evidence led. In the meanwhile,

vide separate orders passed in case of individual workmen, in

view of Government Order No. 307/9-1-2011-133Sa/2008

dated 13.5.2011, the respondents-workmen were regularised

w.e.f. 13.5.2011 in the pay scale Rs. 5200-20200/-.

In view that development, the Labour Court first recorded the

said fact and also made observation that consequential issues

raised were rendered infructuous.

However, with respect to the date, from which the respondents-

workmen were entitled to regularisation, the Labour Court has

returned a cryptic finding that the workmen were entitled to

regularisation from the date of their initial engagement. In that,

it referred to clause 3-B of an unspecified industrial standing

order. At the same time, it has reasoned that the workmen

would be considered permanent workmen from the date of their

appointment as such, after completion of probation of three

months. Based solely on that, the Labour Court has hurriedly

inferred, since the petitioner has admitted to the engagement of

the respondents-workmen in the year 1989, that appointment

(as a permanent workman) was made on that date. Also, since it

was undisputed that the workmen had worked for much more

than three months from the date of their initial engagement, the

period of probation was held to be successfully completed by

them. Accordingly, they have been found entitled to

regularisation with effect from the date of their initial

engagement in the year 1989.

Plainly, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are

imaginative and not based on any evidence or material proved

before it. Merely because the petitioner may not have complied

with the orders of the Labour Court to produce muster roll,

attendance register and certified standing orders, it could not

have led the Labour Court to reach a conclusion that the

respondents-workmen had been engaged on permanent posts.

Leaving apart the objection raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there was a freeze placed on fresh appointments

during the years 1989 to 2010, the reasoning afforded by the

Labour Court is self conflicted. Once the Labour Court has

reasoned that standing order would apply to engagement made

on permanent basis, it had to first record clear finding as to

when that status was acquired by the respondents-workmen.

The award is not only cryptic but also completely silent on that

aspect.

Clearly, the respondents-workmen had not led any evidence in

the shape of appointment letter or other evidence to establish

appointment was received on any permanent post or that

probation was completed. All that they had been successful in

proving was the continuous engagement from the year 1989

onwards. Relevant to that conclusion, the conduct of the

p