The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to pensionary benefits and the calculation of 240 days of service, including Sundays and official/public holidays, are to be determined based on the provisions of GR dated 17.10.1988 and previous court judgments.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the original Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have preferred the present appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the oral judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, Dated: 28.09.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 12082 of 2019, whereby, the learned Single Judge allowed the said petition filed by the present opponent-original petitioner, directing the appellant Nos.1 and 2 to grant pensionary, terminal and other benefits, which had accrued in favour of the late worker, who happened to be the husband of the opponent-wife, i.e. the original petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under;

The husband of the present opponent-wife was engaged by the appellants as a dailywager with effect from 21.11.1972 and he passed away on 25.07.2003, after rendering the services for about 30 years.

2.1 Therefore, the opponent-wife approached the Labour Court, Godhra, by filing an application, being Recovery Application No. 66 of 2013, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ‘Act’, in brief), claiming pensionary benefits.

2.1.1 It appears that the Labour Court dismissed the application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act by the opponent-wife, on the ground that there was no pre-existing right in favour of the opponent-wife, so as to entitle her to claim the benefits, which had accrued in favour of her late husband.

2.2 In view of the above, the opponent-wife filed Special Civil Application No. 12082 of 2019 before this Court, challenging the order of the Labour Court and seeking a direction qua the appellant to immediate fix pension and grant other retiral benefits by taking into consideration the entire period or length of services rendered by her late husband, i.e. from the date of entry in service in the year 1972, till his demise in the year 2003.

2.2.1 The appellants filed reply in the said petition and opposed the same, stating that the late husband of the opponent-wife had not completed 240 days of service in each year.

2.2.2 Further, the appellants also filed an additional affidavit, wherein, it was pointed out that the late husband of the opponent-wife was engaged as a dailywager and therefore, he cannot be granted the benefit of pension, as he had hardly worked for about six years, which does not satisfy the minimum stipulated period of completion of 10 years’ service.

2.2.3 The opponents also produced a separate chart along with the affidavit and it was contended that the late workman had completed 240 days’ service only in six years and therefore, he was not entitled to get the benefits, as prayed for in the said petition.

2.3 After hearing both the sides, at length, the learned Single Judge allowed Special Civil Application No. 12082 of 2019, filed by the opponent-wife, and directed the appellants to grant the benefits, as prayed for, in the said petition. While so ordering, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that the late husband of the opponent-wife had completed 240 days service in 12 years, if, the Sundays and official/public holidays are included in the working days for the said period.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the appellants, mainly, submitted that the husband of the petitioner had not completed 240 days’ service in more than six years and therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that late husband of the opponent-wife had completed 240 days’ work in more than 12 years, if, the Sundays and official/public holidays are included in the same.

4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, then, referred to the document produced at Page-45 of the compilation and submitted that only in the years 1997-1998, 1998- 1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, the late husband of the opponent-wife had completed 240 days’ work and therefore, as