Point of Law: Labour Law – Daily wager worker - Grant of pay revision - Daily wage workers and semi skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for direction to the respondents to grant the pay revision, commensurate with the length of his service as provided in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as well as direction for upward revision of pay as per the subsequent Government Resolutions issued by the State Government from time to time, with all consequential benefits.

2. Tersely stated are the facts:

2.1 The petitioner had joined the service under the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 1.9.1988 as a daily wager driver. The service of the petitioner came to be terminated on 6.8.1989 and being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, which culminated into Reference (LCB) No.528 of 1989. Vide award dated 15.5.1991, the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. Accordingly, the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar vide communication dated 10.10.1995, addressed to the Taluka Development Officer, directed to reinstate the petitioner in terms of the Award dated 15.5.1991.

2.2 In the interregnum, vide order dated 18/25.10.1993 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Shihor, Bhavnagar, the petitioner upon completion of five years of service, was extended the benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 placing him in the minimum scale of pay of Rs.950/- along with prevailing dearness allowances and medical benefits. However, he was not given the benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 commensurate with the length of his service.

2.2 The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondents have not taken any steps to extend the benefits of the revised pay scale as per the recommendation of the Pay Commissions introduced and implemented from time to time and therefore, since last 29 years the petitioner is stagnated in the minimum of pay scale and has been subjected to substantial injustice.

3. The respondent no. 2, has filed affidavit-in-reply, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was working as a daily wager peon with effect from 9.12.1981 with the Taluka Panchayat and was thereafter working as peon-cum-driver with effect from 24.12.1986. It is stated that engagement of the petitioner was neither done by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee nor was in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government for the cadre of driver. Also, it was purely on temporary and adhoc basis depending upon the availability of work and fund.

3.1 Narrating the event, which took place during the year 1981 till the year 1995, it is stated that the petitioner was continued in the employment with a fix pay of Rs.950/-. It is submitted that since the vehicle driven by the petitioner was not in a motorable condition, it was condemned and later on auctioned and thereafter, no new vehicle was allotted to the Taluka Panchayat. Even in absence of availability of the vehicle, the petitioner was continued in the employment as a driver and was paid idle wages. It is reiterated that the petitioner was not appointed after following the due process of recruitment by the competent authority; however, was continued with the Taluak Panchayat and is therefore not entitled to the benefits of regular pay scale and the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by Roads & Buildings Department of the State Government. It is stated that if the prayers, as prayed for by the petitioner, is accepted, the same would amount to back door entry, burdening heavily the public exchequer and setting a wrong precedent. It is therefore urged that petition is meritless and does not deserve to be accepted.

4. Mr. J.V.Japee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1988 as a daily wager and after completion of five years of his service, was