Point of Law: There is no specific provision that daily wagers are not entitled to the payment of gratuity. Considering the provisions of the Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 particularly Sections 3 to 5 and 14, it can very well be seen that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in consistent with any other enactments.

ORDER :

1. In the captioned group of petitions, the petitioner-State has challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority granting gratuity to the respondent-workmen by counting their entire service from the dates of appointment till the retirement. It is the case of the petitioner-State that the respondent-workmen are not entitled to gratuity for the service which they have rendered prior to their having been made permanent.

2. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14860 of 2020 is considered to be the lead matter and accordingly the facts of the said matter are incorporated.

2.1 The respondent-workman was working since 01.10.1980 as a daily wager and he superannuated on 30.09.2008 on attaining age of superannuation.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that as per Government Resolution dated 24.03.2006, the workmen are entitled to the gratuity for a period after they have become permanent or their services are regularized. It is submitted that the said gratuity amount was paid to the workmen as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the Government Resolution dated 24.03.2006. However, the Controlling Authority, Rajkot, vide order dated 27.09.2019 has allowed the application of the respondent-workman and further directed the petitioner-State to pay an amount of Rs.1,96,452/- for 11 years services rendered by the workman prior to his regularization. The appeal filed against the order dated 27.09.2019 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.07.2020 passed in Gratuity Appeal No.55 of 2020. It is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondent-workmen will not be entitled to the gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also under Rules 81 and 82 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and hence, the gratuity, which was paid to the respondent-workman under the Pension Rules by counting his 27 years of service, was just and proper and the impugned orders may be set aside.

4. Per contra, Mr.Nabil O. Bloch, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision dated 28.12.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.156 of 2017 and allied matters.

5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Case No.75 of 2019 reveals that the Controlling Authority, while granting the entire services of the respondent-workman prior to his claim, regularization has calculated the gratuity and has ordered the petitioner-State to pay the same under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It was the case of the petitioner before the Controlling Authority that the services rendered prior to the regularization of the respondent-workman, cannot be granted for the calculation of gratuity in view of the Government Resolution dated 24.03.2006. In the written statement filed before the Controlling Authority filed by the petitioner, a stand was taken that the respondent-workman is paid the amount of gratuity as per the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services and Pension Rules, 2002. The petitioner has contended that the workman is not entitled to gratuity under two different provisions of law i.e. under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Gujarat Civil Services(Pension)Rules, 2002.

7. The case of the petitioner is premised on the Government Resolution dated 24.03.2006 with regard to denying the benefit of gratuity to the respondent-workman. A perusal of the said resolution reveals that the same refers that the service of the workman, before he is granted the status of permanency, is required to be ignored for the purpose of calculation of his pension and retirement benefits.

8. At this stage, I may with profit refer to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of State of Gujarat vs Ranabha Ajmalbhai Harijan, 2018 JX (Guj.) 829, judgement dat