Gujarat High Court
Vallabhipur Nagarpalika vs Mahavir Karansang Rathod on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12194/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12194 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
VALLABHIPUR NAGARPALIKA
Versus
MAHAVIR KARANSANG RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARI PATEL WITH MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
PARTH J ADHYARU(9359) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SIDDHI V VADODARIYA(9533) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.
Vadodariya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf
of the respondent No.1.
2 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in
Reference (IT) No.110 of 2018 dated 27.01.2025,
whereby the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12194/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
Nagarpalika to regularize the services of the
respondent-workman within a period of 30 days from
the date of publication of the award, on the post of
Clerk or an equivalent post, and to pay the pay scale
applicable to other employees working on the same
post. It is further clarified in the award that the
period from the date of regularization till the date of
filing of the Reference shall be treated as notional.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner-Nagarpalika that
the respondent was appointed as a daily-wager
Clerk-cum-Computer Operator with effect from
17.03.2008. The respondent thereafter raised an
industrial dispute by filing the aforesaid Reference
before the learned Tribunal seeking regularization
of service on the ground that though he had been
working since 2008, the benefit of permanency
was not extended to him. The learned Tribunal,
after considering the evidence on record, allowed
the Reference and granted the aforesaid relief,
which is under challenge in the present petition.
3 Heard learned advocate Mr. Hari Patel, appearing on
behalf of learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for
the petitioner, and learned advocate Ms. Siddhi
Vadodariya for the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12194/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
4 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in observing that
while granting the relief of permanency, whether a
sanctioned set up is available or not is immaterial. It
is further submitted that though the respondent does
not possess the requisite educational qualification for
the post of Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, the benefit
of permanency has been granted by the learned
Tribunal. Learned advocate Mr. Patel therefore
submits that the impugned award deserves to be
interfered with and set aside by allowing the present
petition.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya submits
that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that
non-consideration of the sanctioned set up cannot
defeat the claim of the respondent, particularly when
the respondent has been continuously serving for the
last 16 years. It is further submitted by the learned
advocate Ms. Vadodariya that, as per the sanctioned
set up, a vacant post is available. Learned advocate
Ms. Vadodariya submits that by denying the benefit
of permanency despite taking continuous service of
the respondent for more than a decade, the
petitioner-Nagarpalika has indulged in unfair labour
practice. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was fully
justified in granting the relief of permanency and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12194/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
impugned award calls for no interference.
6 Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and
upon examining the reasons recorded, it emerges
that the respondent has been serving since 2008 on
the post of Clerk-cum-Computer Operator. On perusal
of the sanctioned set-up placed on record by the
learned advocate Mr. Patel, it appears that in the
Revenue Department two sanctioned posts are
available and both posts are lying vacant. No
evidence has been placed on record to indicate what
efforts, if any, were made to fill up these posts by
regular recruitment. It is true that while granting the
benefit of permanency, the sanctioned set-up is
required to be considered, and therefore, the finding
of the learned Tribunal that the sanctioned set-up is
not relevant is, in the opinion of this Court, perverse.
However, the learned Tribunal has also observed that
as the respondent has been serving for the last 16
years on the same post and though the sanctioned
posts have remained vacant, neither steps were
taken to fill them through regular employees nor the
benefit of permanency was granted to the
respondent. In these circumstances, the learned
Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of
permanency to the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12194/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
7 With regard to not possessing the education
qualification of the respondent is concerned, this
Court has referred the recent decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo V/s. Union of India
reported in 2024, reported in SCC Online SC 3826
wherein the the Apex Court has held that the
employers themselves have by their conduct shows
that such criteria were not strictly enforce in the
cases of regularization. The long standing
satisfactory performance itself attest to their
capability to discharge the function, making rigid
insistence on formal education required and
unreasonable hurdle.
8 Another argument raised by the learned advocate
Mr.Patel with regard to the financial constrained of
the Municipality and would have a monetary burden
on regularizing the service of the respondent
workman.
9 This Court in case of Dwarka Municipality vs.
Mantri Shree,Jamnagar Jilla Majdoor Sangh &
Anr has observed as under:
"8. Financial viability no doubt is one of the
considerations but then such enterprise or institution
should not spread its arms longer than its means. Where
work is taken not for a short period or limited for a
season or where work is not of part time nature and if
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12194/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
pattern shows work is to be taken continuously year
after year, there is no justification to keep such persons
hanging as daily rate workers. In such situation a legal
obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant
post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with
rules if any. It is repeatedly submitted that without
following the recruitment rules, their entries were made
in the petitioner-Municipality. No recruitment rules were
filed in the proceedings either before the Tribunal or in
the High Court on behalf of the petitioner-
Municipality."
10 Having considered the overall circumstances,
this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned
award.
11 Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
