1. The issue involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court on 12.12.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.10455 of 2012 which reads as under:
“1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitionerCorporation has challenged the judgement and award dated 01.01.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (IT) No.145 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitionerCorporation to grant the benefit of time scale from the date on which the respondentworkman has completed 180 days of service.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondentworkman was serving as a Conductor with the petitionerCorporation. The respondentworkman raised an Industrial dispute, claiming regularization of his service on completion of 180 days of service along with all consequential benefits. The Industrial Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner Corporation to grant the benefit of time scale from the date on which the respondent has completed 180 days of service. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 1.1.2012, the present petition is filed by the petitioner Corporation.
3. Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the fact that the respondentworkman was a regular employee of the petitioner Corporation. She further submitted that since the respondentworkman was a daily wager, he is not entitled to the benefit of the time scale even as per the conditions of the settlement. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
3.1. In support of her contention, she relied upon the unreported decision of this Court, decided on 20.9.2004 in S.C.A. No. 10974 of 1993 and allied matters, the aforesaid order was confirmed in L.P.A. No. 1544 of 2005.
4. Mr. M.H. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, passed judgement and award. He further submitted that the Tribunal after interpreting Section 20 of the settlement, has come to the conclusion that on completion of 180 days, the respondent workman is entitled to the benefit of the time scale.
5. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate further submitted that similarly situated workman had raised dispute before the competent Industrial Tribunal and the award come to be passed in favour of the workman, which becomes subject matter of challenge before this Court in S.C.A. No. 393 of 2000. However, this Court vide order dated 27.1.2000 dismissed the said petition and confirmed the order of the Tribunal. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the petitionerCorporation by way of L.P.A. No. 905 of 2000. However, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2001. Against the said order, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12607 of 2001 was filed before the Apex Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgement and order dated 10th August, 2001.
6. Mr. Rathod, further relied upon the unreported decision of this Court passed in S.C.A. NO. 8563 of 2003 decided on 21.7.2010, which was confirmed in L.P.A. No. 2909 of 2010 vide order dated 18.4.2011. He also relied upon the unreported decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.742 of 2001 and allied matters dated 1.7.2010 and similar order passed by this Court (Coram: R.R. Tripathi, J.) in Special Civil Application No.9389 of 2005 and allied matters by order dated 6.7.2011, and vehemently submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and is covered by the ratio laid down by the earlier judgments. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No.742 of 2001 and allied matters dated 1.7.2010 is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.328 of 2011 by order dated 22.2.2011. Therefore, he submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Over and above the aforesaid decisions, he also relied upon the unreported decisions of this Court passed in S.C.A. No. 9011 of 2004 dated 18.8.2010, which was confirmed in L.P.A. No. 2987 of 2010 vide order dated 7.2.1011, S.C.A. No. 8810 of 2008 dated 21.12.2009, which was also confirmed in L.P.A. No. 988 of 2010 vide order dated 30.8.2010 and S.C.A. No. 2416 of 2011 decided on 28.3.2012.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. It may be appropriate to note that in a similar case, this Court (Coram: Y.B. Bhatt, J. as he then was) in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 by order dated 27.1.2000 has observed as under: ”5. The only contention raised before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not considered the other conditions imposed by the settlement under reference viz. that the workman should have been on the select list, and that he should have been assigned for work against persons on regularly sanctioned post. It may be that the Tribunal has not specifically discussed this issue for the simple reason that this contention was not raised before it in the present form. However, from the discussion found in the impugned judgement and award it becomes obvious that the basic facts pertaining to these questions were not in dispute. It was not in dispute that the workman was a reliever watchman, and that he was being assigned work as and when necessary, when the regular watchman was not available. It has never been the petitioner's case that the workman was not assigned work in the place of a person who was not a regular employee. Both the sides have taken the situation for granted, and the entire matter was contested before the Tribunal on the basis that the regular watchmen, on account of whose absence such reliever watchman came to be employed, were employees who were regular employees in a regular time scale. Secondly it was never a specific case put up by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the workman's name did not figure on the list of such reliever watchmen who would be offered employment as and when required. It is obvious that a select list, in the context of the present circumstances, could only mean a select list of such casual workmen who would be offered work when the regular employees in the regular timescale happen to be absent. Thus, the list of such daily wagers or a list of such casual workmen would be the select list in the context of the relevant clause (clause 20) of the settlement in question which has been discussed and relied upon in the impugned judgement and award.
6.The Tribunal has also referred to and relied upon an earlier judgement and award delivered by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot cited in paragraph 10 of the present judgement and award, and noted that 32 such relieverwatchmen have been granted a regular timescale, and that the said award has been implemented by the petitioner Corporation. In the light of this fact viz. that 32 such reliever watchmen have been granted a regular timescale, the Tribunal had occasion to note that the Corporation has made no submission whatsoever. Thus, if the petitioner Corporation has chosen to grant a regular time scale to 32 such reliever watchmen, based upon the earlier Award referred to hereinabove, there is no reason why the present respondent workman should not have been granted the same benefit.”
9. The aforesaid observations of this Court would squarely cover the issue involved in the present petition. The contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the benefit of time scale can only be accorded to the workmen who have been regularly selected and not daily wagers on their completion of 180 days does not require any further consideration in view of the observations made by this Court as mentioned hereinabove. Learned advocate for the respondent workman is right in pointing out that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the aforesaid judgment and orders.
10. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case.
11. Considering the rival submissions and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent, I find that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal requires no interference by this Court as there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference by this Court. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.”
2. This petition also stands dismissed on the same terms. Rule is discharged.
koshti/ (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)