Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Guj) 2184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
G.R. UDHWANI, J.
BALVANTBHAI SARDARBHAI PAGI & 9 - Petitioners
Versus
DEPUTY ENGINEER & 3 - Respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12350 of 2016 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12351 of 2016 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15438 of 2016 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15453 of 2016 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17345 of 2016
Decided on : 22-12-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:MR BHARGAV PANDYA, AGP, MR BIPIN BHATT, AGP, MR UM SHASTRI, ADVOCATE

Important Point:
a)“Entitlement” may flow from statutorily recognised rights or recognised policy as may have been interpreted by the High Court or the Supreme Court or from some other legal source.b)If the issue of law has been raised in past and is settled by the court and is accepted and implemented, raising of such an issue once again to challenge the entitlement of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act would not, in the opinion of this Court, constitute a genuine dispute.c)When the constitutional court interprets the policy or the statute and lays down the ratio, undisputedly it has a binding effect. Once the pronouncement is accepted without further challenge, the State or the public bodies cannot be permitted to reiterate the argument which was rejected in decided cases, without any justification.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--- Section 33(C)(2)--- Rejection of the applications--- immediately fix the pension and other retirement benefits--- once the eligible daily wager is found to have rendered specified service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act, entire such service from the date of his entry until retirement has to be reckoned for pensionary and other related benefits.--- respondent claiming that days to be counted must be post regularization--- Government Resolution has been interpreted by the Constitutional court--- the respondents are not right when they say that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the services post regularization only must be reckoned.--- however prayer for interest without any due justification stands declined.
Result: Petitions partly succeed

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Respondents waive service. All the petitions raise common question of facts and law and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Rejection of the applications under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”) has given rise to these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. A further relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought for a direction to the respondents to immediately fix the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioners by taking into consideration their entire length of service from the date of their entry in service till the date of retirement. The arrears of pension and other retiral dues as also gratuity and other benefits with interest at the rate of 18% are also sought.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as daily wagers workmen and were conferred upon with the benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and have retired from the service as per the details given in the following table.

Sr. No	Name	Date of Appointment	17.10.88 benefits conferred on	Date of retirement	Special Civil Application
1	Mangalbhai Madhabhai Solanki	21.10.83	01/05/06	31.5.09	12351/16
2	Dahyabhai Chakubhai Harijan	21.1.69	01/04/06	31.5.10	15447/16
3	Solanki Abhabhai Narabhai	21.10.77	01/04/06	31.8.08	17345/16
4	Amarbhai Ramjubhai Parmar	01/03/81	01/04/07	30.9.10	15451/16
5	Chatrabhai Bhulabhai Chauhan	21.8.67	01/04/05	31.7.09	15448/16
6	Shabhai Damabhai Rathod	21.10.72	01/04/06	31.12.10	15449/16
7	Maniben Abhesinh Solanki	21.10.78	01/04/06	31.8.10	15450/16
8	Bhoi Jenabhai Sukabhai	11/09/76	01/12/07	31.1.11	15452/16
9	Chauhan Dhulabhai Sanabhai	21.9.68	01/04/07	31.7.09	15453/16
10	Balvantbhai Sardarbhai Pagi	03/04/77	01/12/04	31.8.11	12350/16
11	Andarsinh Amarsinh Patel	11/04/77	01/12/04	30.6.09	15438/16
12	Parmar Punabhai Hathibhai	11/04/77	01/12/04	30.6.09	15439/16
13	Moti Sardarbhai Pagi	11/04/77	01/12/04	31.7.12	15440/16
14	Baria Dhirabhai Sardarbhai	26.7.1980	01/12/04	30.6.08	15441/16
15	Baria Vaghabhai Arjanbhai	08/10/87	01/12/04	29.2.12	15442/16
16	Baria Somabhai Rupabhai	21.3.1977	01/12/04	30.6.09	15443/16
17	Pagi Abhesinh Narsinghbhai	11/04/77	01/12/04	30.4.13	15444/16
18	Baria Kanubhai Narsinghbhai	09/06/77	01/12/04	30.6.11	15445/16
19	Patel Maganbhai Chaganbhai	14.4.1977	01/12/04	31.5.10	15446/16

3.1 The petitioners had approached Labour Court, Godhra with separate but similar applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act for recovery of the amount on account of their entitlement to various benefits contemplated in G.R. dated 17.10.1988. The Labour Court rejected the applications for want of jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act while relying upon certain judicial pronouncements; in absence of the recognition of the entitlement and in absence of adjudication of their claim under G.R. Dated 17.10.1988.

3.2 The principal contention raised by the petitioners is that having found eligible and conferred upon with several benefits under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and having completed more than 10 years of continuous service before their superannuation as required by the said G.R., they are entitled to pension and other retiral benefits including gratuity as contemplated in the G.R. dated 17.10.1988.

4. The respondents more particularly the respondent-State has opposed these petitions by contending that, for the benefits under G.R. dated 17.10.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Guj) 2184

Cases Referred (1)