Point of Law- Principles of law highlighted, render the inaction on part of the respondent authorities (a) in not extending the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners; (b) in not merging 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic salary with effect from 01st April, 2004 and (c) in not granting the benefits of allowances (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession as part of permanency benefits though the benefit of permanency is granted to the petitioners under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, as violative of petitioners' rights under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (the petitioner-Board) has prayed for quashing and setting aside the award dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad (the Tribunal) partly allowing Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2005 by directing the petitioner-Board to grant the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the members of the respondent Association.

2) Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have also submitted written submissions, which are also considered by this Court.

3) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Prashant Desai for learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the petitioner-Board has submitted that the directions issued by the Tribunal for extending the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the State Government, is erroneous since the members/workmen of the respondent No.1-Agricultural and Rural Urban Association (the respondent-Association) were the part-timers. It is submitted that the policy framed by the State of Gujarat, through Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the petitioner-Board is one time measure, which has to be conferred to the daily wagers only. It is submitted that in absence of the any sanctioned and permanent posts, in the establishment, the Tribunal should not have issued such directions vide impugned award. Thus, it is submitted that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be extended to the members of respondent Association.

4) Learned Senior advocate Mr. Prashant Desai has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not undertaking the exercise of scrutinizing each and every daily-wager, who are the members of the respondent-Association and whether they should be granted the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the reference court for scrutinizing such daily-wagers. It is submitted that some of the workmen are the part-timers working for one hour, two hours or five to six hours and if the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is implemented in their cases, the same would be a heavy monetary burden on the public exchequer. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also not considered the circular of the State Government dated 30.11.1994. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.07.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 82 of 2020 in support of his submissions.

5) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocates Mr.Yatin Oza with Mr. Yogen Pandya appearing for the respondent-Association has submitted that the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the employees of the daily-wagers, has been settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. He has submitted that the Division Bench in the recent decision dated 27.08.2021 passed in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No.35122 of 2019 and allied matters has considered all the judgments on the issue. He has submitted that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which was adopted by the petitioner-Board is also examined as the petitioner-Board was one of the parties in those groups of petitions. It is submitted that thus, it is now not open for the petitioner-Board to take contrary stand in the present writ petition, as the issue is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court, which are confirmed by the Apex Court also.

6) I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The impugned award is also perused by this Court.

7) The case of the petitioner-Board primarily hinges only on one submission that the Tribunal has passed an erroneous award of extending the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the members of the respondent-Association, since its members are the part- timers.

8) This Court has perused the award threadbare. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the