Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Guj) 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.CHHAYA, NIRZAR S. DESAI, JJ.
DISTIRCT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT LABOUR FEDERATION - Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 734 of 2021
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3407 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 734 of 2021
Decided On : 17-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR HS MUNSHAW
For The Respondent: MR DIPAK R DAVE

Point of Law : Respondent workman cannot be said to be a person not entitled to such benefits and similarly situated persons are already enjoying the benefits of Government Resolution.

Headnote:
Workman - Government Benefits - Respondent working as Peon under appellant - Further, he completed more than 14 years service and entitled for benefits flowing from Government however, the benefits of said Government Resolution were not extended to him though same were extended to other similarly situated employees.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent workman was that vide subsequent circular benefits of Government Resolution were confined only to daily wagers of Roads and Buildings Department, which according to us is no ground to deny benefit of Government Resolution to respondent workman as after aforesaid circular much water has been flown in all these years - Law with regard to Government Resolution is no more res integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have in catena of decisions reiterated same - Having noticed that no other material was ever produced before Labour Court or before learned Single Judge which may compel Court to take a contrary view, Court is not in a position to disagree with view taken by learned Single Judge – Court find that learned Single Judge after taking into consideration material available on record and after examining impugned award has arrived at a just and proper conclusion that respondent workman is entitled and eligible to consequential benefits and arrears as per Government Resolution – Curt is in complete agreement with view taken by learned Single Judge.
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. By way of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the present appellant – original respondent No.1 has challenged the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing the said petition held that the concerned workman shall be entitled and eligible to all consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The present appellant is the original respondent No.1 and the present respondent No.1 is the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019.

2 Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as under.

2.1 The present respondent workman preferred Reference (Demand) No.33 of 2019 before the Labour Court, Godhra praying for benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was the case of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that since 16.07.1995 he was working as Peon under the present appellant. Further, he completed more than 14 years service and entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, however, the benefits of the said Government Resolution were not extended to him though the same were extended to other similarly situated employees.

2.2 Before the Labour Court, Godhra written statement was filed and a stand was taken by the appellant that the Government Resolution dated 17.08.1988 is applicable only to the employees of Roads and Building Department and the Government has cancelled the said Government Resolution by subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.03.1995 and the benefits of the said Government Resolution will not be given to any other persons except the persons serving in Roads and Building Department as daily-wagers. It was also contended that appointment of the respondent workman is irregular appointment and purely on adhoc basis, and therefore also, he is not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2.3 The Labour Court, Godhra vide its award dated 15.01.2018 held that the respondent workman is entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, but considering the scheme of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which prescribed for periodical fixation of pay scale, directed that the services of the respondent workman be treated as notional till 16.07.2005 by taking into consideration his date of appointment as 16.07.1985 and the respondent workman be paid all the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from 16.07.2005. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the workman.

2.4 Aforesaid award dated 15.01.2018 was challenged by the present appellant by way of filing Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018, whereas the same award was challenged by the respondent workman by filing Special Civil Application No.3047 of 2019 to the extent of not granting arrears from 1995 to 2005 to the workman as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2.5 The learned Single Judge vide common judgment and order dated 20.06.2019 dismissed Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018 preferred by the present appellant and disposed of Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019 preferred by the workman by holding that the workman shall be entitled and eligible to all consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2.6 Since the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred only against the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019 wherein the respondent workman challenged the award dated 15.01.1988 only to the extent of denying the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the period from 1995 to 2005, the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties are considered bearing in mind the fact that the petition preferred by the appellant being Special Civil Application No.13

Click Here to Read the rest of this document