IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that continuity of service recognized by the Labour Court is essential 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 in the year 1975. The petitioner’s service came to be terminated in the year 1991. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination before the Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference L.C.J. No.172 of 2001. By the award dated 29.08.2011, 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.

3.2 The petitioner, thereafter, was reinstated in service on 28.11.2011 and has been working as daily wager. By letter dated 18.04.2015, 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 10.08.2015 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 10.08.2015 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 in the year 1975. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated in the year 1991, 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.

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 scale on completion of 15 years of service and is entitled to increments after completion of 20 years and 25 years of service if, the services are continued as per Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines “continuous service” which states that if a workman completes 240 days in a year than it is to be counted as continuous service. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid and the order passed by the Labour Court whereby, the petitioner’s service is directed to be considered as continuous service and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated by the award dated 29.08.2011 in Reference L.C.J. No.172