In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court on the case of A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, a significant decision has been made regarding regularization and workman rights. The court’s ruling sheds light on crucial aspects of employment law in the state.
Facts
- Appellant municipality filed a statement denying the work duration claimed by the workman from 1999 to 2018.
- This led to petitions by both parties, which were disposed of by the challenged order.
- The workman claimed to have worked since July 1999 and was eventually regularized in 2008-09.
- Two petitions were filed, one by the municipality and the other by the workman, resulting in rejection and partial allowance respectively.
- The Industrial Tribunal found that the workman had worked continuously for 240 days a year from 2003 to 2018.
- Evidence included the workman’s affidavit and the Chief Officer’s examination, revealing lapses in the municipality’s setup.
- The Tribunal concluded that the workman had indeed worked for 15 years with perennial duties in the Water Works department.
- Based on the evidence and lack of denial regarding the nature of work, the Tribunal directed for the workman’s regularization.
Arguments
- Regularization cannot be the mode of recruitment by any State
- Order directing regularization of workman was erroneous
- Workman’s appointment was not through regular mode of recruitment
- Direction to regularize services contrary to law due to absence of municipality set up
- Reliance placed on the case of A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others (2004) 7 SCC 112
- Assailing the order partly allowing the petition by granting regularization from 2001
Analysis
- The evidence from the wage register indicated that the respondent worked as a daily wager continuously from 2001-02 to 2017-18.
- The Tribunal and the Single Judge’s finding that the respondent completed 240 days of service each year is supported by the evidence.
- The Chief Officer’s deposition, particularly in the cross-examination, admitted that the respondent performed duties similar to Class-IV employees.
- No evidence regarding the establishment or set up was presented before the Tribunal.
- Since 1976-77, there had been no demand from the municipality for an increase in the set-up.
- The appointment of the respondent for over 25 years cannot be deemed irregular or illegal, especially since he fulfilled duties for which no essential qualification was required.
- The reliance on a judgement of the Apex Court by the senior counsel for the appellant is deemed irrelevant in this context.
Case Title: JAMJODHPUR NAGAR PALIKA Vs. JAMNAGAR JILLA MAJDOOR SANGH
Case Number: R/LPA/509/2024
