Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This group of petitions has been referred to us in view of different observations of two Division Benches on the point as to whether the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can order regularisation of services to a local authority which is a public body in which there is no availability of sanctioned set-up as per the provisions of Municipalities Act.

1.1 The learned single Judge, while hearing Special Civil Application No. 5646 of 1999 and Special Civil Application No. 5750 of 1999, was shown two different views expressed by Division Bench in the case of Kalol Municipality v. Shantaben, reported in 1993 (2) GLR 997 and in the case of Halvad Nagarpalika and Ors. v. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai and Ors., reported in 2003 (4) GLR 3229 : 2003 (2) GHCJ 397, 1.2 In Special Civil Application No. 5746 of 1999, the petitioner Amreli Municipality has challenged the legality and validity of award dated 12-3-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) Nos. 85, 99, 100 and 101 of 1993. By the impugned award, the Tribunal directed regularisation of concerned workmen. The concerned workmen were ordered to be made permanent on completion of 240 days service which commenced from 1-1-1991 and onwards.

1.5 Special Civil Application No. 803 of 2004 is filed by Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Union against Amreli Municipality and the Regional Director of Municipality praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Regional Director of Municipality under Section 260 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act whereby regularisation of employees was suspended. The petitioner-Union also prayed in the petition for direction to comply with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) Nos. 85, 100 and 101 of 1993. According to the petitioner-Union, the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, by common award passed in the said Reference on 12-3-1999, directed regularisation of services of the concerned workmen. The Municipality challenged the said award by filing Special Civil Application No. 5727 of 1999. It appears that the said petition was dismissed for default, however, was subsequently restored. After the said petition was heard, the Municipality came out with a draft amendment stating that the Regional Director of Municipality issued an order purporting to exercise powers under Section 260 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act.

3.1 Learned Counsel Ms. Sejal Mandavia appearing for the petitioner-Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Tushar Mehta, invited our attention to the decision in the case of P. Ravindran and Ors. v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 350 wherein the Supreme Court held that Public Service Commission having been conferred constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and for selection through open competition. Therefore, the process of recruitment through Commission as envisaged under the Constitution cannot be by-passed by issuing direction for regularisation of services of ad-hoc persons who had come to the service through back-door entry.

6.1.21 The decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jetpur Municipality v. Saurashtra Employees Union, reported in 2004 (1) GLH 526 was relied on wherein the learned single Judge observed that the back-door entry had been allowed and recognised for a period of four years and as no steps had been taken by the Municipality to terminate the service of such employees, it was not open for the authority to state that such appointments were not in accordance with law.

6.1.22 Learned Counsel cited a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Praveen Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Vikas, reported in 2004 (1) LLN 129 wherein the learned single Judge gave certain directions to the State Government for regularisation of services of workers of Nagarpalika.