Rule. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.66/2005 dated 10.02.2012 whereby, the reference was allowed and the petitioners have been directed to grant the benefit of permanency to the respondent-workman as a full-time Watchman with effect 01.07.2007 and to pay salary and other admissible allowances. However, the period between 01.07.2007 till the date of impugned award was directed to be treated as notional only except for all other purposes, viz. seniority, promotion, etc.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-workman was appointed as a Watchman by the petitioners on 10.10.1989 after following due process of recruitment. In spite of rendering continuous service on the said post, the petitioners had not regularized his services. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman raised a dispute, which culminated into a reference before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the reference, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-workman. It appears from the record that the respondent-workman was appointed as a part-time Watchman by the petitioners for serving six hours a day. His appointment was done after following due process of selection. It is not disputed that the respondent-workman had rendered continuous service as a Watchman for a period of more than thirteen years. In his oral evidence, the respondent-workman deposed that he was serving as a Watchman on full-time basis. The said fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners had not produced any evidence regarding the total working hours of the respondent- workman in a day. The respondent-workman was serving as a Watchman at Community Health Centre, Mota Khuntwada. It has come on record that there is no other Watchman at the said Health Centre. Therefore, an inference was drawn against the petitioners that the respondent-workman was working for more than five hours a day.
4. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Para-53 of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 01, the Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of permanency to the respondent- workman. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in its award and hence, find no reasons to entertain this petition.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) PRAVIN