Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, NISHA M. THAKORE, JJ.
Anand Agricultural University - Appellant
Versus
Mangliben Wd/o Surjibhai Kalabhai Damor - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 844 of 2021, Special Civil Application No. 1629 of 2010, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : D.G. Chauhan, Ronak D. Chauhan
For the Respondent: P.C. Chaudhari
The Labour Court's failure to address the applicability of a Government Resolution led to the quashing of its award, affirming the University's right to implement its own regularization scheme.
Headnote:
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference (LCD) (Demand) no.1 of 2008 - Labour Court's award directing the University to confer permanent status and benefits to workmen - The University contended that the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is not applicable to it, and the Labour Court failed to address this issue. (Paras 2, 9, 11)
(B) Employment Rights - The court emphasized that the University has its own scheme for regularizing daily wage workers, and the respondents may claim benefits under this scheme. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a Labour Court's award directing the University to treat workmen as permanent and grant various allowances, despite the University arguing the inapplicability of a Government Resolution. (Paras 2, 9)
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court's order was quashed, allowing the University to decide claims under its own scheme within 8 weeks. (Paras 11)
Issues: The main issue was whether the Government Resolution was applicable to the University and the Labour Court's authority to grant permanent status. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Labour Court did not adequately address the applicability of the Government Resolution and affirmed the University’s right to implement its own scheme for regularization. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Appeal allowed; Labour Court's award quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(A.S. SUPEHIA, J.)
1. Admit. Mr. P. C. Chaudhari, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents.
2. The matter is taken-up for final disposal today. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 31st March 2021 in the captioned writ petition filed by the appellant University challenging the award dated 17th July 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (LCD) (Demand) no.1 of 2008 (Old Reference (LCG) (Demand) no.8 of 1996, whereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference filed by the respondent workmen and directed the appellant University to treat the concerned workman as permanent from the year 1990 and to pay dearness allowance, house rent allowance, medical allowance, benefits of leave encashment etc. and also grant Rs.5,000/- as a cost to each of them.
3. At the outset, Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the appellant university has invited our attention to the statement of demand and the terms of reference and has submitted that the entire demand of the respondents workmen and the reference proceedings are premised on the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the Road and Building Department of the State Government. It is submitted that the said resolution is not applicable to the appellant University and it has its own scheme.
4. On a specific query raised by us in this regard to Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondents, he has fairly submitted that the said resolution dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the State Government is not applicable to the University. However, it is contended by him that independent of the aforesaid resolution, the Labour Court has directed the appellant university to confer the permanent status to the respondent- employees.
5. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has submitted that out of these 15 workmen, who had raised the industrial dispute, 11 of them have already passed away. He has produced the details of such workmen in the additional affidavit dated 8th August 2024.
6. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has further submitted that the Labour Court has referred to the pleadings of both the parties with regard to the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. He has also submitted that in the written statement filed by the University, a specific contention was raised that this resolution is not applicable to the University. It is submitted that similar contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award dated 31st March, 2021.
7. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondents at this stage has submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondent- workmen to claim regular pay scale or status of permanent for filing an appropriate application before the University, since all the workmen have completed more than 25 to 30 years of service. He has also submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondents workmen or their heirs to claim the benefits of the scheme of the appellant University, which has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 574.
8. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length.
9. The genesis of the dispute lies in the demand made by the respondents workmen claiming benefits of regular pay scale of Rs.750/- and other benefits such as Dearness Allowance, Medical allowance, HRA, Leave Travel Allowance, Overtime Allowance, Cycle Allowance etc. The statement of demand dated 15th February, 2000, categorically refers to the resolution dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the State Government for its employees of conferring the aforesaid benefits. The entire demand/case of the workm
