Point of Law:
There cannot be any confusion about the Government Resolution and it is obligatory on the part of the government to extend all the benefits to these petitioners, who have been regularized on regular posts with regular scale of pay.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner – State seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2019 passed in Recovery Application No. 55 of 2015 by the Labour Court, Jamnagar, by which the Court has directed the petitioner to pay the benefit of leave encashment of Rs.2,24,042/- within 30 days from the date of order with costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent– workman.

2. The respondent-workman has claimed that he was working with the petitioner-Department from 28.02.1984 to 31.10.2014 as a daily-wager and he was relieved from the work, on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. It is, further, the say of the respondent-workman that he worked with the petitioner-Department for 30 years and his last drawn salary was Rs. Rs.19,417/-, i.e. Basic Pay of Rs.8,080/- + Grade Pay of Rs.1300- + Dearness Allowance of Rs.10,037/-.

4. Since, the respondent-workman was denied the retiral benefits, he approached the Labour Court, Jamnagar, where, the reply came to be filed by the present petitioners, objecting to the same on the ground that the same has not been incorporated in the benefits which had been specifically made available in the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The petitioner also has disputed the amount which has been claimed by the respondent. The Labour Court after permitting the adducement of evidences by both the parties, granted the benefit of leave encashment to the respondent, as referred to herein above.

5. This has aggrieved the petitioner, who is before this Court and has urged that the daily wagers are not the government employees and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits under the Gujarat Civil Service (Revision) Pay Rules, 2009. It is, further, urged that there has to be a pre-existing benefit at the time of superannuation, otherwise all the benefits at that stage had been paid, therefore, the recovery application itself was erroneously entertained. The expression money due in its primary sense would not denote an existing debt. In the context of Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the liability since was not as yet ascertained, the Court below has failed to appreciate this vital aspect and has granted the amount.

6. It is also the say of the petitioner that the circular issued by the Narmada Irrigation and Kalpsar Department of the Gujarat Government, Dated: 02.12.2005, made a clear distinction regarding the benefits to be given to the daily wagers and it is urged that the leave encashment is not contemplated, therein. It is further the say of the petitioner that all these cumulatively would lead to quash and set aside the judgment and order and therefore, the following prayers are made:-

“10.…

(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.08.2019 passed in Recovery Application No. 55 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar, in the interest of justice;

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2019 passed in Recovery Application No. 55 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar, in the interest of justice;

(D) ...”

7. This Court has heard learned AGP, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, extensively, who along the line of memo of the petition has argued this matter and has urged that the resolution dated 17.10.1988 does not contemplate the transfer of monetary benefit of leave and therefore, the Court below has committed serious error in granting the leave encashment to the respondent. He has urged that this would require interference. He further has urged that there should not have been a recovery application under Section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act without any predetermined right of the party.

8. This Court notices that after the recovery applic