Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nikhil S. Kariel, J.
Narendra Babubhai Makvana – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 120, 130, 131, 137 of 2024
Decided On : 19-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Krunal D Pandya
For the Respondent: Mr Sahil Trivedi Assistant Government Pleader/PP, Mr Aditya Pathak Assistant Government Pleader, Mr Ayaan Patel Assistant Government Pleader, Mr Krunal D Pandya

Employees completing a specific number of years are entitled to benefits of permanency and are to be treated at par with regularly appointed employees. Additionally, piece rated workers are entitled to benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

Headnote:
Government Resolution - Employment Benefits - [Section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Article 309 of the Constitution] - The court discussed the applicability of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and subsequent Government Resolutions of the Forest Department to employees who had their status changed from daily rated employees to piece rated employees. The court referred to various decisions including State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest and Employees’ Union, State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Another, and Executive Engineer Panchayat (MAA & M) Department and Another Vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi & Ors. to clarify that employees completing a specific number of years are entitled to benefits of permanency and are to be treated at par with regularly appointed employees. The court also emphasized the inclusion of Sundays and Public Holidays while computing the period of service under Section 25 of ID Act. Additionally, the court upheld the entitlement of piece rated workers for benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and directed the authorities to confer the benefits to the petitioner as per the law established by the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and subsequent Government Resolutions of the Forest Department after their status changed from daily rated employees to piece rated employees. The respondents argued that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of the resolution prior to the date their status had changed.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioners to submit individual representations for grant of benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It also instructed the authorities to decide on the representations within a specified period and to pay the benefits to the petitioners if entitled. The petitioners were given the option to challenge the decision before an appropriate forum.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioners to benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 after their status changed from daily rated employees to piece rated employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that employees completing a specific number of years are entitled to benefits of permanency and are to be treated at par with regularly appointed employees. The court also emphasized the inclusion of Sundays and Public Holidays while computing the period of service under Section 25 of ID Act. Additionally, the court upheld the entitlement of piece rated workers for benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Final Decision: The petitions were partly allowed, and the court directed the petitioners to submit individual representations for grant of benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The authorities were instructed to decide on the representations within a specified period and to pay the benefits to the petitioners if entitled. The petitioners were given the option to challenge the decision before an appropriate forum.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Krunal Pandya on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for grant of benefits as would be available to the petitioner under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and subsequent Government Resolutions of the Forest Department.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties, while it would appear that the petitioners have been working for a number of years with the respondents, in some of the cases it would also appear that the petitioners during their course of service, have their states changed from daily rated employees to piece rated employees. It would also appear in this regard that the said status is being questioned by the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners were never informed about their change in status and whereas it is also submitted that had the respondents considered the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, then the petitioners having completed more than 10 years would have been entitled to the protection under the Service Rules which would have resulted in the respondents not being able to change their status.

4. On the other hand it is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that since the status of the petitioners have changed in the year 2016 and thereabouts, the only issue which would remain for consideration is whether the petitioners would be entitled for benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 prior to the date their status had changed.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates, since it would appear that as of now, there has been no decision by the respondents as regards the applicability of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, therefore, a direction at this stage to the respondents to direct the representation that would be preferred by the petitioners, would meet with the ends of law. Such a such course of action is not being objected by learned Advocates for the respective parties.

6. At this stage, before passing an order in the above terms, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to certain decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, where the scope and ambit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been laid down.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest and Employees’ Union, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 248, at paragraph 14, has observed as thus:-

“14. Having regard to the above, we are confining our discussion to the aforesaid exceptions taken by the appellant. In the first instance, it is pointed out by the appellant that even if the respondents become permanent, they would be entitled to be fitted in the job description in terms of the Rules. What is (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. emphasised is that even after regularisation, their pay scales cannot be more than the pay which is given to the employees who are taken on permanent basis. This appears to be a very sound argument. The only plea was that whatever is given to such employees in other departments, same benefit be extended to the respondents as well. It is difficult to countenance this submission which we find to be legally impermissible. That is hardly any justifiable response to rebut the same. It is to be kept in mind that members of respondent union were all engaged on daily wage basis. No doubt, the appellant Government decided to confer certain benefits upon these daily wage workers depending upon the number of years of service they put in. Judgment dated July 09, 2013 proceeds on that basis. Under certain circumstances, namely, on completion of specified number of years of service on daily wage basis, these daily wage workers are entitled to become permanent. On attaining the status of permanency/regular employees, they become at par with those employees who