The Gujarat High Court Justice, Biren Vaishnav, asserted the Industrial Tribunal order on the sweeper. Apparently, the sweeper worked for four hours a day for thirty years. The Gujarat HC ordered the authorities to amend the sweeper’s position. In addition to this, they called to reinstate the dues, given the length of the term.
The Respondent-Union represented the worker and raised an industrial dispute saying that the Petitioner-State denied a full-time job to the worker. Even though the worker spent 30 years in a four-hour shift, the establishment did not allot him from 10 AM to 6:30 PM.
On the other hand, the Petitioner-State challenged the order of the Tribunal on the ground that initially, the establishment did not appoint the worker on a full-time basis. She worked when things came up, and her payment came through contingency funds. The petitioner-state argued that she was not entitled to regularisation as her appointment did not follow the recruitment procedure.
Gujarat High Court Dismissed Petition
Algemene Bank Nederland, NV Central Government, State of UP, PO Labour Court, and other precedents supported the statement. Justice Vaishnav confirmed that the company did not provide the sweeper with an appointment order. But, they verbally confirmed her full-time working hours.
The Petitioner-State could not prove their claim that she was working for only two hours. As per the State bench, the nature and extent of the job prove that she did work more than two hours. Her work was cleaning toilets, washing utensils, serving water, visiting the post office, and paying company bills. Furthermore, a regular employee post existed in the same setup, but it was vacant.
The above evidence and contentions convinced the Tribunal to direct regularisation. However, the Gujarat High court couldn’t grant all the benefits of regularisation. Subsequently, they could only warn about taking further care in appointing an employee with the standard recruitment process. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition.
