Jamnagar Municipal Corporation vs Shramyogi C/O Jamnagar Maha Nagarpalika Employees Union

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 19.3.2004, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (I.T) No. 65 of 2001, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner­Corporation to regularize the services of the respondent­ workman with effect from 1.4.1991 on the post of Market Supervisor. The Tribunal further directed the petitioner­Corporation to give the financial benefits including yearly increment notionally from 1.4.1991 and thereafter to give all the financial benefits including the arrears of salary from 1.1.2001.

2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondent­workman filed reference before the Tribunal claiming for regularization his services on the post of Market Supervisor w.e.f. 1.4.1988. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner­Corporation to regularize the services of the respondent­workman on the post of Market Supervisor with effect from 1.4.1991. The Tribunal further directed the petitioner­Corporation to give the financial benefits including yearly increment notionally from 1.4.1991 and thereafter thereafter to give all the financial benefits including the arrears of salary from 1.1.2001. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in regularizing the service of the respondent­workman on the post of Market Supervisor since as per the statutory Rules the respondent­workman is not qualified to be appointed as Market Supervisor. Therefore, she prayed to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent­workman has submitted that the similarly situated employees have been promoted pursuant to the Government Circular, which has been produced on record before the Tribunal. Therefor, he submitted that the judgement and award of the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. The main contention of the petitioner­Municipality is that the respondent­workman is not qualified to be appointed as Market Supervisor. However, the petitioner ­ Municipality had not produced any documents before the Tribunal regarding the prescribed qualification for the post of Market Supervisor. Further the statutory Rules, on the basis of which, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent­ workman is not qualified to be appointed as Market Supervisor, are not produced before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner­ Municipality. It appears from the record that the petitioner­ Municipality has admitted in his cross­examination that the post of Market Supervisor is sanctioned post and the said post is vacant and they have taken work of Market Supervisor from the respondent­ workman. It is required to be noted that though the reference was filed by the respondent­workman in the year 1993, the Tribunal has given the actual benefits with difference of pay to the respondent­ workman with effect from 2001. Therefore, this Court is of the view that impugned judgement and award of the Tribunal is just and proper.

6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity much less any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the respondent­authority. The Tribunal has given complete and cogent reasons in passing the impugned award. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter in greater details. No further evidence is produced on record to take a different of the matter. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan