ORAL ORDER

1. This is petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the award dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (L.C.B) No.2 of 20211. Under the impugned award, the directions are issued by the Labour Court to treat the respondent herein as a permanent employee in Class-IV of the petitioner-establishment. The main contention raised amongst the other pleaded are argued before this Court is that the respondent-workman is a backdoor entry and that there is no procedure, which was followed before inducting the respondent-workman in the establishment, and therefore, appointment, if any, the date treated as illegal appointment.

2. It is submitted that as the respondent-workman is to be treated as a irregular appointee, there is no question of offering him the permanency to the respondent-workman. It is submitted that when the respondent-workman was inducted into the establishment, there was no vacant and sanctioned post, and therefore, also, no direction could have been issued by the Labour Court to offer permanency to the respondent-workman.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that though the petitioner has taken up the contention in their reply to the statement of claim that the respondent-workman was not inducted against the vacant and sanctioned post, the Labour Court has not assigned any reason to accept to reject the contention. In fact, it is submitted that merely on the oral evidence of the witnesses, the conclusion is short that the respondent-workman is not a backdoor entry.

4. As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-corporation submitted that entire case was based on the unfair labour practice which is adopted by the establishment and addressing the issue framed vide Issue No.II, the Labour Court has elaborately discussed the nature of evidence and has concluded that the petitioner-establishment has adopted unfair labour practice by taking work from the respondent-workman at various stage and in various departments and despite that, has not given the pay-scale or salary, which is equivalent to the other employee, who has been given such salary or benefit.

5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the Labour Court apparently has given elaborate decision and has examined all the aspects, which were placed before the Labour Court. The reference is made to the Labour Court was as under:-

“Shri Chothabhai Odhabhai Makwana who had been performing duty as the Pound Keeper and Peon and at present, who has been performing duty as the Water Works Helper with the Water Department, whether be given permanent appointment, with effect from 01/07/2004, from his current appointment as the Daily Wager, Class-IV to an employee of Class-IV or not? Further, consequent to issuing the order as to his permanent appointment, whether the benefits of the applicable Pay Scale of Class-IV employees and other ancillary benefits with arrears be rendered to him or not?”

6. The case of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that he had been appointed as the Pound Keeper w.e.f. 01/07/2004 vide the resolution dated 29/06/2004 and since then, he had been rendering services as the Pound Keeper. Later he used to render his service as a peon in the Office of the Municipality. Lastly, since 01/10/2010, he had been rendering service as a Helper with the Water Works Department of the Municipality. Where the stated worker had been made performing duties of a Class-IV employee, his duties were of permanent nature, where on a post becoming vacant pursuant to superannuation of a worker Shri Vaghjibhai L. Parmar who happened to perform duty as a Permanent Employee of Class-IV, the workman had been appointed w.e.f. 01/10/2010 who has been performing his duties with integrity and the sanctioned post of Class-IV with the Municipality, is lying vacant, and where the workman has been made performing