Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Ghelabhai Vajabhai Satiya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 18867 Of 2018
Decided On : 04-09-2024
Wages - Employment - Government Resolution 17.10.1988 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Government Resolution and the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the inclusion of piece-rate workers under the definition of wages, leading to the reinstatement and benefits for the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought benefits under Government Resolution 17.10.1988 after being denied due to not meeting the 240-day work requirement. He was also orally terminated while the case was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a piece-rate worker, was entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution and that the denial of his claim was unjustified.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a piece-rate worker, is entitled to benefits under the Government Resolution 17.10.1988 despite not meeting the 240-day work requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that piece-rate workers fall within the definition of wages under the Industrial Disputes Act, thus entitled to benefits under the Government Resolution.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the petitioner is reinstated with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
(Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) :
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs :
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to extend the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 09.07.2013 (reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579) to the petitioner from the date he became eligible for such benefits with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances;
BA. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent authorities, orally terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2018, as illegal, bad in law, contrary to principles of natural justice and thus, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same;
BB. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned communication dated 16.05.2019 from the respondent no.5 as illegal, bad in law, contrary to the principles of natural justice and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same;
BC. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and continuity of service.
C. Your Lordships be pleased to permanently restrain the respondents herein from changing the service conditions of the petitioner to contract labour by way of outsourcing or terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law;
D. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the decision dated 06.08.2018 and to direct the respondent authorities to process the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;
E. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the wages of the petitioner from April 2018 which are outstanding;
F. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from contracting out petitioner’s services or taking any coercive action against or terminating the services of, the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law; and
G. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed it, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is seeking the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Roads and Buildings Department. The petitioner herein is working in the Forest and Environment Department since several years; having been appointed on piece
Piece-rate workers are entitled to benefits under the Government Resolution 17.10.1988 as they fall within the definition of wages under the Industrial Disputes Act.
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 ....
A piece-rate worker is entitled to the same benefits as daily wagers under Government Resolution 17.10.1988, highlighting the necessity of equitable treatment in employment rights.
The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 applies to all departments in the State of Gujarat, and the concerned respondent authority is directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner w....
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.
Daily wage workers with over five years of service are entitled to benefits under the government resolution, irrespective of the 240 days work requirement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
