(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Applicants-original respondents of Special Civil Application No.11964 of 2004 and connected petitions have moved this contempt petition alleging that respondents i.e. officer of the Keshod Nagar Palika and the Director of Municipalities have not complied with the directions of the learned Single Judge contained in the common order dated 12.10.10 in Special Civil Application Nos.11964 of 2004 and connected petitions.
The applicants had approached the Labour Court seeking permanency in their employment. The Labour Court allowed their reference upon which the Municipality approached the High Court in separate writ petitions. While allowing the said writ petitions and reversing the awards of the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge made following observations :
"4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. The impugned judgment and awards dated 18.05.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJD) Nos.13/2001, 12/2001 and 14/2001, are hereby quashed and set aside. However, while allowing the present petitions, it is observed that petitioner Municipality to submit proposal to the Director of Municipalities or the State Government for sanctioning additional posts of clerks, subject to requirement and as & when additional posts are sanctioned, the case of the respective workmen to be considered in accordance with law and on merits, subject to fulfilling other eligibility criteria and competing with others. It is observed that if the concerned respondents are found to be equal and/or at par with other persons, considering their services, preference can be given them. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. No cost."
It is the case of the applicants that the observations and directions contained in the above-mentioned para 4 have not been complied with. Their case is that the Municipality has made no reference for sanction of additional posts. Their cases are therefore not being considered.
Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are being engaged on daily-wage basis since about 15 to 20 years.
Learned counsel Shri Buch appearing for the respondent relying on the affidavit in reply dated 10th January 2012 filed by Shri Charu G. Mori, Chief Officer of Keshod Municipality submitted that at present the Municipality does not require any additional set up. Learned Judge had directed the Municipality to do so only subject to the requirement of the Municipality. When no such requirement is felt, not making any such proposal with the Government would not be in conflict with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do appreciate that the respondents have not committed any contempt. As noted, directions of the learned Single Judge were for considering the cases of the applicants along with other eligible candidates provided there are posts available. For such purpose, the learned Judge desired that the Municipality should make proposal to the Government for sanctioning additional set up subject, of course, to the requirement of the Municipality. When no such requirement is felt and that therefore no such proposal is made, we do not find that the Municipality committed breach of any of the orders or directions of the Court.
Before closing, however, we cannot help observing that continuing daily-wagers for decades together without examining the need for regular set up and not granting permanent benefits has not been approved by this Court as well as the Apex Court in series of decisions. In the case of Amreli Municipality v.
G.P.M.E. Union, 2004(2) GLH 692, a Full Bench of this Court while strongly deprecating and disapproving back-door entries in public employment, still however, observed that "we are conscious of the fact that by not approving the appointments of such daily wagers, it will be very difficult for them to survive and the question of their livelihood would arise. Keeping this aspect in mind, we do feel that in appropriate cases, their interests are required to be protected."
Consequently, while giving final directions, the Full Bench provided guidelines which included the following :
"(2) If the workmen who have continued for years as temporary employees, in the event of their termination, the authorities will see that no unqualified person is appointed in their place."
Under the circumstances, while closing this contempt proceeding, we leave it open to the applicants to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (C.L.Soni, J.) (vjn) Top