Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

This batch of 64 appeals is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat on March 22, 2002 whereby the Division Bench of that Court confirmed the award dated August 20, 1997 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. Since the judgment as well as the questions raised herein are common, these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

1.2. Gujarat Agricultural University, appellant, (hereinafter referred to as, "Employer"), is an educational institution fully aided by the Government of Gujarat. It is engaged in the educational activities, particularly, in agriculture and allied sciences and humanities in the State of Gujarat. It has various agriculture Research Stations at different places in the State of Gujarat. In discharge of its duties and functions under the Gujarat Agriculture University Act, 1969, the employer engages daily rated labourers for various activities relating to agriculture research farms, fisheries, dairies, veterinary and other allied sciences.

2.3. On August 22, 1980 during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings (Conciliation Case No. IDC 480/80), a settlement under Section 12 read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "ID Act") was entered into between the representative of the employer and the representatives of the workmen.

3.4. On July 27, 1983, Banaskantha General Workers Union gave a notice to the employer under Section 19(2) of the ID Act for termination of the settlement as the workmen intended to submit their demands afresh. However, no fresh settlement took place between the employer and the workmen.

4.5. With regard to the daily rated labourers working in Dantiwada Zone, it appears that a dispute arose about regularization of their services which was ultimately referred for industrial adjudication at the instance of the respondent, All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union, (hereinafter referred to as, "Union"), vide Reference (IT) No. 463/91 before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The said reference is still pending before that Tribunal.

6. Somewhere in the year 1991, the Government of Gujarat issued notification by which 2nd and 4th Saturday were declared holidays. The employer vide its circular dated October 3, 1991 also declared 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month holidays and 11 days Diwali holidays. Accordingly, the daily rated labourers engaged by the employer

were not provided any work during these holidays.

5.7. The daily rated labourers (64 in number) working in the Dantiwada Zone felt aggrieved by the change of their service conditions during the pendency of the Reference (IT No. 463/91) without following the prescribed procedure and, accordingly, filed separate complaints under Section 33A of the ID Act alleging the breach of Section

1.33. These workmen prayed for declaration that the action of the employer in forcing leave on 2nd and 4th Saturday and 11 days during Diwali without pay was illegal. They prayed that the employer be ordered to pay wages in lieu of all such forced holidays/leave granted to them.

2.8. The employer contested these complaints. In their reply they raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaints on the ground that the demands made in the complaints have no nexus or connection with the pending reference and, therefore, there is no breach of Section 33. The employer set up the plea that being fully aided government institution, it followed the rules of the State government and declared 2nd and 4th Saturday and 11 days holidays during Diwali. The employer asserted that there is no breach of Section 9A of the ID Act nor there is any change in the service conditions of the concerned workmen. The employer also set up the plea in its reply that when institution remains completely closed, it would not be possible to call the workmen for work and, therefore, the question of paying wages, for the day on which work is not done, does not arise.

3.9. The