SCA/3591/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3591 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ============================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================= = RASHTRIYA MAZDOOR UNION & ANR - Petitioners Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS - Respondents ============================================= = Appearance : MR RAJESH P MANKAD for Petitioners MS.PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents: 1, 3, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ============================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 17/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT This petition is filed seeking appropriate direction for complete implementation of the award dated 05/09/1994 SCA/3591/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT passed in Reference No.174 of 1992. The said award was subject matter of challenge upto Apex Court but the challenge had failed. The say of the petitioner is that the award has not been implemented. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the award is actually implemented and therefore the present petitioners have no ground to challenge the same. 2. Shri Mankad, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that as the tribunal while granting the award clearly observed that the work pattern was required to be changed and thereafter the award is passed saying that temporary workman who has put in six months service as a temporary workman shall be deemed to have permanent on completion of six month service; all the temporary workmen other than work charge employees and daily rated workmen who have put in more than six months' service as temporary workmen shall be taken to be permanent on the date of this award being effective and in future all temporary workmen who have put in six months' service as temporary workmen shall be taken to be permanent and they shall get all the benefits of the permanent workmen. 3. As per say of Mr.Mankad, learned Advocate for the SCA/3591/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT petitioners the award contents that the change of work pattern would go to show that the respondents were to change the work policy and not to pay anyone for daily rated or either work charge employees. In the instance case, it is the say of the respondent-State that the award is confined to the temporary workman and as per the chart given, no temporary workman within six months of period has been left out. 4. Ms.Pathak, learned AGP as per instructions makes a statement at the bar that the award is fully complied with and no temporary workman who had completed six months service as stated in the award has been left out from the benefit of regularization. 5. This Court has heard learned Advocate for the respective parties and has perused the award impugned in the petition. The operative portion in the award is required to be set out which is required to be interpreted in its proper manner. “I would, therefore, direct the workshop authorities that pattern of the employment shall be changed and temporary workman who has put in six months service as a temporary workman shall be deemed to be permanent on completion of such six months service. All temporary workmen other than work charge employees and daily SCA/3591/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT rated workmen who have put in more than six months service as temporary workman shall be taken to be permanent on the date of this award being effective and in future all temporary workman who have put in six months' service as temporary workman shall be taken to be permanent and they shall get all the benefits of the permanent workmen. I do not propose any change regarding the categories of work charge employees and daily rated workman in this award.” 6. Thus, the concerned Industrial Court has unequivocally and rather categorically mentioned that it did not propose to change or alter the position with regard to the category of workman of work charge employee or daily rated employee in this award. This direction is so clear as to militate against the submission of Shri Mankad with regard to changing work pattern. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the petition is bereft of any merits and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim-relief, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) sompura