Evidence of continuous employment established entitlement to permanency benefits despite prior agreements limiting financial claims.

1 Leave to correct the first name of the Respondent. Correction be carried out forthwith.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3 The Petitioners seek to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2013 delivered by the Industrial Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No.24/2008 by which the complaint filed by the Respondent seeking benefits of permanency has been allowed.

4 Shri Suryawanshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. His contention is that Petitioner No.2 is the limb of the State of Gujarat having it's seismograph station at Sawalda, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. The Respondent/ workman was appointed as a “Chowkidar” on daily- wages w.e.f. 01.01.1990 to guard the installation at the seismograph station, Sawalda.

5 He further submits that the Respondent was terminated in 3 1996 and he had preferred Complaint (ULP) No.123/1996 alleging oral termination. It is not in dispute that by the compromise purshis dated 04.05.1999 jointly filed by the Respondent/ workman and the Petitioners/ establishment before the Labour Court, the termination of the Respondent was recalled and the Petitioners agreed to reinstate the workman on the post of “Chowkidar” at Sawalda with continuity of service.

6 Shri Suryawanshi further submits that after reinstating the Respondent/workman on 05.05.1999 by the order of the Court, he continued in employment of the Petitioners at the same place. He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.24/2008 alleging Unfair Labour Practices (ULP) against the Petitioners and sought permanency with benefits incidental and consequential thereto. It is this complaint which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2013.

7 Shri Suryawanshi submits that the written SAY was placed on record before the Industrial Court stating therein that Narmada Project Geological Division has been abolished by the Government of Gujarat. The Industrial Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the matter merely on the ground that the Respondent is deployed at the installation at Sawalda. He was working on daily-wages and his name was entered on the nominal muster roll. No right is created in the Respondent for seeking 4 regularization or benefits incidental and consequential thereto.

8 Shri Suryawanshi further points out the cross-examination of the Respondent wherein, he has stated unequivocally that he was ready and willing to work with the Establishment as per the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 04.05.1999. He has resiled from paragraph 2 of the compromise purshis. The Industrial Court has deprived him of the said benefits. He has falsely stated that he was the only Chowkidar guarding the installation at Sawalda and that there are no other Chowkidars at the said place. He has conveniently pretended about having no knowledge of two Chowkidars, namely, B.B.Basava and A.P.Tadvi.

9 Shri Suryawanshi submits that the Respondent was orally appointed and cannot be said to have completed 240 days in the continuous and uninterrupted service of the Petitioners. His engagement on daily-wages amounts to a back door entry. He is not entitled to regularization in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806 : 2006(4) SCC 1.

10 Shri Suryawanshi has then drawn my attention to the reasons 5 assigned by the Industrial Court while delivering the impugned judgment. He submits that on skeletal evidence, the Industrial Court has given benefits of regularization to the Respondent. The Respondent can voice his grievance before the Government of Gujarat or the Labour machinery within the State of Gujarat. He adds that the Respondent has not challenged the impugned judgment to the extent of denial of benefits like bonus, leave encashmen