ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the award dated 22.4.2016 passed in Reference (IT) No.60 of 2012 and the order dated 6.8.2018 passed in Misc. Application No.4 of 2016 by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, noticing that the similar controversy has been decided by the Coordinate Benches of this Court. The details in this regard can be found in paragraph-’6.1’ of the judgment impugned. It is also noted by the leaned Single Judge that the controversy which was adjudicated by the Tribunal has been settled by the decision of the Apex Court.

2.

The issue raised by the appellant in the reference, registered as Reference (IT) No.60 of 2012, was with regard to the grant of benefits of Clause-’20’ of the settlement dated 21.12.1989, which had been arrived between the representatives of the workmen and the Corporation, namely Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (‘GSRTC’).

3.

It may be noted that as per Clause-’20’ of the settlement, which is the dispute referred before the Tribunal, provided that the case of a daily wager shall be considered for being taken on regular time scale after completion of 180 days as a daily wager, keeping in view the availability of confirmed vacant posts of the respective cadre. There was further stipulation that the said consideration would be on the basis of inter-se seniority of such daily wagers. It is, therefore, evident that there were three fold stipulations under the policy, worked out in Clause-’20’ of the settlement, which is sought to be pressed into service by the appellant -workman in a reference filed in the year 2012 before the Tribunal. We may record that the claim of the appellant is that he was appointed in the year 1982 as a Reliever/ Badli Worker, but he had continued to work on regular basis as a daily wager. The contention, thus, is that after completion of 180 days of employment as a daily wager, his status as a ‘Badli Worker’ had changed to ‘Daily Wager’. He was, thus, required to be considered. It is contended that for continuous working as a Watchman for a long period of time, his status as ‘Badli Worker’ had been changed to ‘Daily Wager’ and he was entitled for the benefit of Clause-’20’ after completion of 180 days as a daily wager. Further reference has been made to the findings returned by the Tribunal to the effect that no documentary evidence was produced by the Corporation before the Tribunal to bring on record the details of the period of working of the appellant. The submission is that the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in drawing the adverse inference in granting the benefit of Clause-’20’ of the settlement while passing the award dated 22.4.2016.

4.

Considering the said submissions, we may note that the benefit of providing regular time scale to a daily wager could have been granted only on completion of an exercise wherein there was requirement of identification of substantive vacant posts in the respective cadres; drawing of a seniority list to ascertain inter-se seniority of such daily wagers who have completed 180 days as daily wager. This exercise, as per the claim of the appellant -workman, had not been conducted, so as to provide the benefit of Clause-’20’ of the settlement to all daily wagers working in the Corporation. However, the fact remains that for a period of 23 years (from 1989 to 2012), the appellant did not raise any grievances. He has attained the age of superannuation on 1.1.2017 and the dispute admittedly was made by making a reference in the year 2012. It was, thus, not permissible for the Tribunal to grant the benefit of the time scale on an individual claim of the appellant- workman, that too on a reference made in the year 2012.

5.

The award dated 22.4.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is found to suffer from grave error of law. We may further record tha