AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the Appellant and Ms. Asha H. Gupta for the Respondent.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.2.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17394 of 2003, by which the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad granting benefit to the Respondent on the post of Welder with effect from 1.4.1983 to 21.9.1999 and all consequential benefits with retrospective effect has been given to the workman, was confirmed.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the Respondent workman had not passed Welder Test examination conducted by ITI and therefore, he was not qualified to be regularised on the post of Welder in pursuance of Circular No. 446 dated 14.2.1985.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Annexure-''F'', which gives eligibility qualification of welder. It provides that if a person has worked for a period of five years, then his educational qualification can be relaxed looking to his work experience.
We are of the opinion that this has to be read as educational qualification of Welder, he is not ITI pass, and workman is to be regularised on the basis of experience of five years as welder. Therefore, Circular of 1985 was squarely applicable to the case of the Respondent workman and the relief was rightly granted by the Industrial Tribunal to the workman.
According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant had given promotion to the Respondent on the post of Welder in the year 1990. It is not disputed that the Respondent was working with the Appellant as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) employee from 1978. He had in the year 1983 completed experience of five years and fulfilled the other conditions of service. Therefore, he was entitled to be regularised and given the service benefits of the post of Welder from 1.4.1983.
In our opinion, the learned Industrial Tribunal has not committed any error in granting benefits to the Respondent workman. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, this Appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith.