The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a government resolution by an employer obligates the employer to grant the benefits to the employees as per the resolution, and failure to do so may amount to a breach of constitutional articles.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned advocate Ms. Dharmishta Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the respondents.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2017 of learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Special Civil Application filed by respondents herein, the two petitioners.

2.1 The communication impugned was set aside and it was directed to give to the petitioners the benefit of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union and Ors. [2013(2) GLH 692 (SC):(2013) 12 SCC 417] upon completion of 10 years of service and to give all consequential benefits treating the petitioners as permanent.

2.2 The petitioners in their special civil application, advanced the following prayers,

"(i) to direct the respondents to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners and the petitioners be treated as permanent employees after completion of 5 years of service and be given all the benefits of permanent employees including regular pay-scale on the date the petitioners completed their 5 years of service;

(ii) to direct respondents to extend all the benefits of regular post with regular pay-scale in favour of the petitioners from the date they have completed 10 years of service as per the G.R. Dated 17.10.1988;

(iii) to direct respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioners after placing the petitioners in pay-scale after completion of 5 years and 10 years of service;

(iv) to direct respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent employees after they have completed 10 years of service and be pleased to direct respondents to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioners treating them permanent after their completion of 5 years of service;

(v) to hold and declare that decision of the respondents in not extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners is illegal.."

2.2 Thus, the petitioners claimed that they were entitled to get the permanency benefits and regular pay-scale and other benefits as per the State Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, adopted by the respondent Gujarat Maritime Board -appellant herein.

3. The petitioner No.1 initially came to be appointed as apprentice in the trade of Wireman for three years with effect from 25.09.1989. Similarly, petitioner No.2 was appointed as apprentice Wireman by order of the respondent Board from 30.03.1990 to 29.03.1993. Both the petitioners completed apprenticeship training for three years and they also thereafter underwent apprenticeship test successfully to earn the certificate. The petitioners passed the examination of Wireman and certification was granted to them about passing such examination.

3.1 Immediately upon completion of apprenticeship period, the petitioners came to be engaged as daily wager wireman by respondent no.2 Gujarat Maritime Board in office of respondent no.3 Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Gujarat Maritime Board, Bhavnagar. Thus, the petitioner no.1 has been serving as Wireman since October 1992, whereas petitioner no.2 is in service since March 1993 as daily wager Workman. Both the petitioners have completed more than 20 years of uninterrupted service under the respondent Board.

3.2 It is the case that Resolution of the State Government dated 17.10.1988, whereby the service benefits are extended to daily rated Workman on the basis of length of service came to be adopted also by the Gujarat Maritime Board, appellant herein. The petitioner made representation for getting benefit thereunder. Respondent no.3 Executive Engineer stated that the proposal was forwarded to the Board and it was further intimated to the petitioners that the same was thereafter pending before the State Government. The petitioners remained under false hope that the proposal will be finalised soon. However, neither the proposal was materialised