IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that continuity of service recognized by a Labour Court must be considered for granting benefits under government resolutions for daily wage workers.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein seeks directions qua the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union & Ors., reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579.

2. Heard Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:

3.1 The petitioner is working as daily wager (Rojamdar); having joined the service under the respondent No.3 on 01.12.1982. The petitioner’s service came to be terminated on 13.12.1993. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination before the Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference L.C.J. No.20 of 2001. By the award dated 30.03.2013, the Labour Court held the termination illegal and directed the respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service; duly produced at Annexure – A. The said order was subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.16261 of 2014 whereby, in the said order, there was a joint statement made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties therein that pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, in Reference (LCJ) No.20 of 2001 dated 30.03.2013, the petitioner was offered the work by letter No.Legal/84-85/2014-15 dated 28.02.2015 which was accepted by the petitioner by letter dated 09.03.2015 and the petitioner joined the duty as offered. It is also recorded in the said order that the order is executed and in view thereof, the petition was disposed of as infructuous.

3.2 The petitioner, thereafter, was reinstated in service on 28.02.2015 and has been working as daily wager. By letter dated 23.06.2015, the petitioner made representation to the respondent No.3 to extend the benefits of the Resolution dated 15.09.2014 duly produced at Annexure – B, and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2013 (8) Scale 579. The said representation came to be rejected by communication dated 06.08.2015 on the ground that the petitioner failed to complete 240 days in 3 years. In view thereof, by way of present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned communication dated 06.08.2015 and has further prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to grant the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 respectively.

4. Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union & Ors., reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579, whereby, the Department of Forest and Environment passed the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 to extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to those daily wagers who completed 240 days of service as on 29.10.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the service on 01.12.1982. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated on 13.12.1993, which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Labour Court wherein, the termination came to be set aside and the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service vide order dated 30.03.2013.

4.1 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in Letters Patent Appeal No.2627 of 2010 wherein, it is held that the continuity of service granted by the Labour Court is required to be counted for all the purposes. In view thereof, the continuity granted by the Labour Court is required to be counted and the petitioner is required to be extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014. It is submitted that as per Clause – 3 of the said Government Resolution, the petitioner is entitled to the pay scal