RAVAL RANDHIRBHAI VINUBHAI Vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the Award dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 9 of 2003, by which, the Labour Court has rejected the reference and thereby not regularized the services of the petitioner workman.

(2.) Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that this petition be disposed of finally. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bhargav Pandya waives service of notice of Rule for respondents.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. D. G. Shukla appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner workman was appointed as a Watchman-cum-Guard by the respondent No.1 in the year 1982. He has been working for about 36 years on the said post and he had also worked as a Clerk for certain period. However, till date, the petitioner workman has not been regularized in service and made permanent by the respondent department despite the fact that petitioner is working on the sanctioned post. Petitioner, therefore, raised industrial dispute through Union seeking permanency/regularization in service which came to be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Rajkot. It is submitted that Statement of Claim was filed by the petitioner and the respondent filed Written Statement denying the allegations made in the Statement of Claim. Both the parties produced documentary as well as oral evidence before the Labour Court. Labour Court passed impugned Award by which reference of the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.