In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.
The Single Judge accepted the stand taken by the Corporation and accordingly upheld their action in granting the benefit to the employee appellant from 27.08.2008 as provided in clause 20 of the Settlement.
By impugned judgments and orders, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the employees and upheld the orders of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by the employees in this Court.
The Corporation was accordingly asked to pay all companysequential benefits from such date.
He was employed as a daily wager.
The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 18.09.2014, allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
The appellants employees felt aggrieved and filed intra companyrt appeals before the Division Bench.
Like the appellant, there were hundreds of Badali Kamdars who were working in the set up of Corporation at all relevant time.
By award dated 08.08.2013 Annexure P 12 , the Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the employees and accordingly granted them benefit, which the employees had claimed.
In terms of clause 20 of the settlement dated 21.12.1989, the Corporation companysidered the case of the appellant when the vacancy occurred in the permanent cadre on the post of Conductor and accordingly he was absorbed as permanent employee in the services of the Corporation on 27.08.2008 as Conductor.
Learned companynsel urged that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal were based on proper appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties and hence such findings companyld number be faulted with.
Heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.
In substance, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the stand taken by the Corporation.
The facts and the legal issues arising in all these appeals are similar in nature except the date of their initial appointment and absorption, which vary from case to case in the service of the respondent.
Those who were found eligible and fulfilled the companyditions were absorbed in the services as permanent employees on the post of companyductor and were accordingly given the time scale on the expiry of companypletion of 180 days in the cadre.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
In other words, the Industrial Tribunal held that the appellant employee is entitled to claim the permanent absorption in his service in the time scale as Conductor with effect from the companypletion of his 180 days of service period from the date of his initial joining, i.e., 04.06.1999.
28519 28522 of 2017 are mentioned hereinbelow.
Clause 20 of the Settlement, which is relevant for the disposal of these appeals, deals with the placement and absorption of the Badali Kamdar in the permanent cadre of companyductor and grant of time scale to such workers.
It provides a procedure as to how, when and in what manner, the services of a Badali Kamdar shall be regularized and absorbed in a particular time scale.
The cases of these Badali Kamdars were also companysidered with a view to find out as to whether they fulfill the companyditions set out in clause 20 for making them permanent in the set up of the Corporation as and when permanent vacancy arose in the cadre of the Conductor.
These appeals are filed against the final judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 28.06.2016 in L.P.A. No.550/2016, dated 22.08.2017 in L.P.A. Nos.1344 1347/2017, dated 04.07.2017 in L.P.A. Nos.1185/2014, 1199, 1252, 1254 1259, 1261, 1264 1278, 1281 1282, 1284, 1286, 1288, 1291 1296, 1298/2014, dated 21.06.2016 in L.P.A. Nos.497 500/2016 and dated 04.07.2017 in L.P.A. Nos.1200, 1287, 1289, 1297 and 1299/2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and upheld the orders passed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
The Corporation felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad.
He was given the time scale with effect from 27.08.2008 with companysequential benefits.
For the sake of companyvenience, the facts mentioned in Reference I.T. No.44/2011 Annexure 12 of the paper book of SLP Nos.
On 21.12.1989, the Corporation and the Union of the workers entered into a settlement to resolve several issues in relation to the service companyditions of the employees working in the Corporation.
Prafulbhai Hirabhai Solanki, one of the appellants herein, whose name appears at page 18 of the SLP paper book joined the services of the respondent Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation on 04.06.1999 as Badali Kamdar at Mangrol Depot of Junagadh Section.
