Long, continuous service in irregular appointments can justify regularization where appointments are not illegal.

Respondent No. 1–Union raised a demand for regularisation of 34 workers. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (I.T.) No. 242 of 2016. The reference was ultimately pursued in respect of 27 workers who had worked as daily-wage Safai Kamdars from different dates, including 2004, 2007 and 2008.

The Industrial Tribunal partly allowed the reference by directing the petitioners to appoint the 27 workers as permanent Safai Workmen from their respective dates of appointment, while denying back wages for the period preceding the award dated 28 November 2025 and treating that period as notional. It also directed consideration of retirement benefits such as pension and gratuity.

The Municipality challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the workers had not been appointed through the prescribed recruitment procedure, had not established completion of 240 days in the preceding 12 months, and that regularisation would impose an unsustainable financial burden.

The evidence showed continuous service, payment of wages, availability of vacant Safai Kamdar posts, and appointment of other Safai Kamdars in 2012 while the concerned workers remained daily wagers.

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in directing regularisation of the 27 daily-wage Safai Kamdars despite their appointment not having been made strictly in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure.

2. Whether the petitioners’ alleged financial constraints constituted a valid ground to deny regularisation to workers who had rendered long and continuous service.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court exercised its judicial-review jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It distinguished between an illegal appointment, which violates the core constitutional scheme or statutory recruitment requirements and cannot ordinarily be regularised, and an irregular appointment, involving procedural lapses such as failure to notify an employment exchange or conduct open competitive selection, which may be regularised in appropriate cases where the employee has rendered long-standing service.

The Court further applied the principle that continuous and uninterrupted service for a prolonged period, particularly against available sanctioned or vacant posts, may justify regularisation where the employer has consistently accepted the employee’s services.

The Gujarat Municipality Act and applicable recruitment requirements were considered in the context of the petitioners’ contention, but no specific statutory provision or precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the 27 workers had continuously worked for approximately 14 to 26 years and had been paid wages for their services, a factual position that the petitioners could not effectively controvert.

Although the appointments were not shown to have followed every prescribed recruitment procedure, the Court held that the petitioners had not established that the appointments were against sanctioned and valid posts or that the workers lacked the requisite qualifications; consequently, the appointments were treated as irregular rather than illegal.

The evidence also disclosed 49 posts for Safai Kamdars, vacancies in 2025, and the appointment of other Safai Kamdars in 2012, despite the continued availability of the concerned workers.

This circumstance supported the Tribunal’s finding of unfair labour practice.

The plea of financial incapacity was rejected because the petitioners produced no material proving an actual financial crisis, and financial hardship alone could not defeat the workers’ claim after prolonged service.

Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the award, the Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

The alleged financial constraints were insufficiently proved and did not warrant denial of relief.

The petition was dismissed on merits, the Rule was discharged, and the petitioners were directed to comply with the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 28 November 2025 within six weeks.