Sr. No.,Particulars,Workman Name,Post,Date of Joining
1.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.973 of 2023","Alkubhai Ayabhai
Khuman",Valveman,01.04.1997
2.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.974 of 2023","Dhanjibhai
Chhaganbhai
Chudasama",Valveman,01.05.2003
3.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.975 of 2023",Chetan M Bhatt,Valveman,01.01.2000
4.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.976 of 2023","Rasikbhai Govindbhai
Makwana","Street Light
Attendant",01.06.1997
5.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.977 of 2023","Balkrushna Anturam
Hariyani & Makhdum
Umarbhai
Dhandhukiya",Valveman,"01.08.1998
15.03.2000
6.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.978 of 2023","Govindbhai Nanjibhai
Vaghela",Fitter,01.01.2000
7.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.979 of 2023","Musabhai Kasambhai
Jakhra","Lineman/
Va lv e ma n /
Pumpman",01.06.1991
8.,"Letters Patent Appeal
No.980 of 2023","Babubhai Bachubhai
Sagar",Valveman,01.03.1996
and the workmen in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in such",,,,
cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua",,,,
them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieved the equality",,,,
by upholding Article 14 of the Constitution, rather than violating this constitutional provision.†(para 39)",,,,
5.4 The Supreme Court pertinently observed in Regional Manager, State Bank of India vs. Raja Ram [(2004) 8 SCC 164] as under,",,,,
“In other words, before an action can be termed as an unfair labour practice it would be necessary for the Labour Court to come to a",,,,
conclusion that the badlis, casuals and temporary workmen had been continued for years as badlis, casuals or temporary workmen, with",,,,
the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. To this has been added the judicial gloss that artificial,,,,
breaks in the service of such workmen would not allow the employer to avoid a charge of unfair labour practice. However, it is the",,,,
continuity of service of workmen over a period of years which is frowned upon. (para 9),,,,
5.4.1 The Apex Court proceeded to state,",,,,
“Besides, it needs to be emphasised that for the practice to amount to unfair labour practice it must be found that the workman had been",,,,
retained on a casual or temporary basis with the object of depriving the workman of the status and privileges of a permanent workman.,,,,
There is no such finding in this case. Therefore, Item 10 in List I of the Fifth Schedule to the Act cannot be said to apply at all to the",,,,
respondent's case and the Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was, in the circumstances, likely to acquire",,,,
the status of a permanent employee.†(para 9),,,,
5.4.2 The decision in Raja Ram (supra), was followed in Regional Manager, State Bank of India vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (2006) 1 SCC",,,,
530.,,,,
5.5 In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court extensively referred to the law on the issue and after eloboratly",,,,
discussing the law, the following propositions were laid down,",,,,
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularisation,",,,,
where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution;,,,,
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to,,,,
exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such,,,,
posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as,,,,
regular workmen on lower wages; (emphasis supplied),,,,
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to",,,,
grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service;,,,,
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open to workmen who have",,,,
been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial,,,,
Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and",,,,
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer",,,,
should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the",,,,
benefits payable to permanent workmen.†(emphasis supplied) (para 34),,,,
5.6 The test laid down in Raja Ram (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Tewari (supra) are satisfied in the facts of the present case. It could be,,,,
emphatically said that the case of the workmen falls within the corners of observations and directions of the Supreme Court in Oil and,,,,
Natural Gas Corporation (supra), to be classified for grant of relief of regularisation, as the vice of unfair labour practice on part of the",,,,
employer is established.,,,,
5.7 In similar set of facts, yet another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jamjodhpur Nagarpalika versus Sunil Punjabhai",,,,
Dhakecha in R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 200 Of 2023 in R/Special Civil Application No. 18202 Of 2017 decided on 25.07.2023 deserves to,,,,
be noticed. The following paragraph was observed and held,",,,,
“7. ….., it is evident from the perusal of the material on record, as also the findings given by the Labour Court and the learned Single",,,,
Judge that the appellant Nagarpalika had indulged in unfair labour practice by continuing the respondent workman on temporary basis,",,,,
though posts in the permanent set up were available. The act of appellant Nagarpalika in continuing the respondent workman on temporary,,,,
basis on lower wages despite discharge of the same duties as that of a permanent employee in the permanent establishment is nothing but,,,,
amounts to unfair labour practice. It is evident that the appellant Nagarpalika had continued the respondent workman for years together,,,,
with the object of depriving him of the benefits payable to a permanent workman, though he was discharging the same duty as that of a",,,,
permanent employee. No explanation could be offered by the appellant Nagarpalika either before the Labour Court or before the learned,,,,
Single Judge or in this appeal as to why the respondent workman was continued on temporary basis on the post of Pipeline Repairer when,,,,
the vacant post of Pipeline Repairer in the permanent establishment was available. No such record of permanent set up of appellant,,,,
Nagarpalika was placed before the Labour Court and the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the witness or the appellant,,,,
Nagarpalika admitted that there was a permanent set up but the detail thereof was not made available, could not be assailed by the learned",,,,
counsel for the appellant Nagarpalika.â€,,,,
5.8 The evidence regarding the set up shows that the posts in the set up were available and vacant. It is to be noted that in the present case,",,,,
specific finding is recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and reiterated by learned single Judge that the treatment meted out to the workmen,,,,
was unfair labour practice. The ratio of decisions of the Supreme court in Hari Nandan Pradad (supra), Raja Ram (supra), which the",,,,
Supreme Court finally laying down the parameters in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), are applicable to the facts obtaining in the",,,,
present case.,,,,
5.9 While the factual and legal merits clearly discussed with elaboration as above, it is to be noted that in similar set of facts and",,,,
circumstances, yet in another decision, the Division Bench of this court in Savarkundala Municipality vs. Shantilal Ambaliya, which was",,,,
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1437 of 2022 decided on 27.10.2023, dealt with the issue dismissing the appeal. Learned advocates for the",,,,
parties stated that the said judgment was carried before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 976 of 2024, which Special",,,,
Leave to Appeal came to be dismissed on 16.1.2024.â€,,,,
12. The Coordinate Bench has considered the engagement or employment of the similarly situated workmen in the Water Works Department, it is",,,,
held that such employment would amount to unfair labour practice and is defined in Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I.D. Act).",,,,
The Coordinate Bench has also considered Section 25T of the I.D. Act, which prohibits the employers resorting to unfair labour practice. Similar",,,,
contention with regard to the non-availability of setup was also raised by the Municipality before the Coordinate Bench and the same was also dealt,,,,
with. Unquestionably, in the present case the respondent workmen are juniors to those workmen / Valvemen / Pumpmen / Fitters, who are before the",,,,
Coordinate Bench and in whose favour the Industrial Tribunal has passed the award of regularizing their services. The appellant â€" Savarkundla,,,,
Municipality assailed the order passed by the Coordinate bench by filing SLP (C) No.1606 of 2024, the Supreme Court has rejected the same by",,,,
passing the following order dated 23.01.2024: -,,,,
“We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.",,,,
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.",,,,
13. A contention has been raised by the Municipality that due to various awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal, a dicey situation is being faced by it",,,,
in ordering regularization since the juniors are regularized whereas the seniors are still waiting to be regularized.,,,,
14. The Municipality has no option but to implement the award, as confirmed by this Court. The benefit of regularization, as directed by the Industrial",,,,
Tribunal and as confirmed by this Court, has to be extend to the workmen, who have approached the Court of Law, and there exists a judgment and",,,,
order in their favour. There are various awards, which are confirmed by this Court, so far as the issue relating to regularization of the employees of",,,,
the Water Works Department is concerned. It is the Municipality, which has created such a situation, wherein the issue of regularization of workmen,",,,,
has resulted into heart burning. The appellant â€" Municipality, being the model Employer, has to take interest in resolving the issue and this Court",,,,
cannot delve into such issue, which is not considered by the Industrial Tribunal or before the Coordinate Bench. The appellant â€" Municipality cannot",,,,
shirk from its liability of implementing the awards and the orders passed by this Court by contending that the seniors are left out and the juniors are,,,,
regularized in view of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal. From the tenor of the litigation, which this Court has been confronted, we find",,,,
that the issue of regularization of the persons engaged in the Water Works Department has been not dealt with by the Officers of the Municipality, in",,,,
the manner in which, the same should have been dealt with by pointing out the correct and true facts.",,,,
15. The Coordinate Bench as well as the Industrial Tribunal has considered the evidence on record, which was presented before it and the",,,,
Municipality was afforded full opportunity to present its case with appropriate evidence.,,,,
16. In wake of their remissness in adducing the evidence by stating the appropriate facts, neither the Industrial Tribunal nor this Court can be blamed",,,,
for the mess, which has been created by the appellant â€" Savarkundla Municipality. The appellant - Municipality has even failed before the Supreme",,,,
Court and the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and as confirmed Coordinate Bench have been upheld. Hence, we cannot take any contrary",,,,
view, which has been expressed by the Coordinate Bench, in wake of the fact that the judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench",,,,
confirming self-same award, has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the appellant - Municipality.",,,,
17. For the foregoing reasons and analysis, the present appeal fails. The same stands dismissed accordingly.",,,,
18. As a sequel, the connected civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.",,,,
