By way of these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 121 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Reference in favour of two employees – ex-servicemen and directed the petitioner to give the benefits which are paid to other permanent employees of the petitioner, like bonus, uniform, shoes, raincoat, woollen uniform, washing allowance, cycle allowance, earned leave, sick leave, leave encashment, etc., to the respondent workmen. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Desai has pointed out that in view of the decision which was referred in the order of the Tribunal, namely, Special Civil Application No. 5810 of 1991 which came to be decided on 24.7.2000. The prayers made in the said petition read as under:
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction on respondents to compel them to pay Full Salary with allowance and all other benefits in the proper pay scale (treating Rs.1200/- as basic) from the date of joining to Mr. Meghraj Ganpatsingh Chauhan and Mr. Balkrishna Dajirao Ingle, and further be pleased to direct the respondents to confirm the above workmen in the services for having completed 720 days services, and
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits on account of granting Prayer (A) as above.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to be refrained from terminating the services of Mr. M.G. Chauhan and Mr. B.D. Ingle by way of Artificial Breaks or otherwise in any manner, during the pendency and final disposal of this petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay Rs.1800/lumpsum per month during the pendency and final disposal of this petition to above workmen.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of this case.
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant cost of this petition.”
Ultimately, in paragraph No. 4 of the said order, the petition came to be dismissed and Pursuant to which, the petitioners were dismissed from service. Against the said order of dismissal, Letters Patent Appeal was filed before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court granted interim relief and stayed the order of termination, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 6279 of 2001 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Division Bench.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5810 of 1991. He further contended that the respondents are not regular employees and therefore, they are not entitled to any benefits which are given to the regular employees since they are engaged in temporary service of the petitioner Corporation in Security Department as “Watchman Supervisor”. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Raval has contended that even if the employees are taken in service on temporary basis or on contractual basis, they are entitled to basic requirements/facilities for the purpose of effective and proper function. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal granting the benefits to the respondents is just and proper.
4.1. He further contended that the petitioner, being a statutory Corporation, should not have preferred the petition for trivial issues where ex-servicemen are to be given the basic requirements and they, being senior citizens, should have been offered the benefits and the trivial issues are not required to be challenged.
4.2. Learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that this Court should take a lenient view and should allow the benefits which are granted by the Tribunal.
5. Before proceeding with the matter, it is clear that the issue is squarely concluded in view of the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5810 of 1991 which was delivered on 24.7.2000. By the said decision, the petition came to be dismissed where the prayers were same as in the present petition. In that matter, the decision of learned Single Judge was challenged before a Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal in which interim stay was granted by the Division Bench. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in view of the decision of the writ petition which is also referred to by the Tribunal while referring to the pleadings in the award on page 38 at paragraph No. 3 and the benefits which were available after completing 720 days were not there but because of the continuation of stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court, the benefits were available to the respondents. The interim stay order of the Division Bench was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5.1 In that view of the matter, the basis on which the Tribunal has proceeded the matter is the interim stay order which came to be set aside. Therefore, the basis on which the Tribunal has proceeded for coming to the conclusion is no longer surviving.
5.2 The respondents were not treated as regular employees by the employer and therefore, their services are required to be dismissed. In that view of the matter, the decision taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed and the same is reversed. However, if the respondents have any right, it will be open for them to approach appropriate authority under law.
6. In the result, the petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)