Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D.KARIA, L.S.PIRZADA, J.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Ghelabhai Vajabhai Satiya - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 2026 In Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 2026
Decided On : 20-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms Shruti Dhruve, AGP
For the Respondent:Mr Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Ms Aditi S Raol(8128)

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.

Headnote:(A) Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 - Labour Law - The Court held that a piece-rate worker is entitled to benefits similar to daily wagers under Government Resolution 17.10.1988, as affirmed by Supreme Court directions regarding equal treatment for employees. (Paras 3.4, 3.6, 12, 15)

(B) Employment Rights - The court ruled that oral termination was unlawful and that continuous service confers entitlement to salary and benefits as per Government directives irrespective of the label of employment. (Paras 9, 12, 8)

Facts of the case:
The respondent worked as a daily-wage worker under the Forest Department since 2010 but argued for benefits comparable to those granted to similarly situated daily-wage workers in other departments. The appeal arose from a petition for extending these benefits, which had been previously denied despite governmental directives.

Findings of Court:
The respondent was entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution as per the Supreme Court directive, asserting the illegality of his termination and necessity for restoration of all benefits.

Issues: The main questions were whether the respondent, classified as a piece-rate worker, had equal standing with daily wagers for benefits under the Government Resolution, and the legality of his termination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that statutory directives compel equal treatment among workers regardless of the nominal designation of their employment, reinforcing the legal principle of equality in labor rights.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. context of employment benefits for daily-wagers (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments surrounding eligibility for benefits (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of legal definitions and previous rulings (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. recognition of rights under government resolutions (Para 12 , 13)
5. final decision to uphold employee benefits (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA)

1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve appearing for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms.Aditi S. Raol appearing for the respondent on advance copy.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the present appellants-original respondents, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by the original petitioner (herein after referred to as 'the respondent') came to be allowed.

3. The factual matrix of the present appeal is that the respondent was working as a daily-wage worker under the Range Forest Officer, Vallabhipur Range, in the office of the appellants since 01.07.2010 and had been engaged in the work of maintenance of nurseries in the Range. The respondent was neither getting the minimum wages prevailing in the State, nor were getting any other benefits or perquisites in the nature of allowances extended to the respondent and his wages were fixed on a piece-rate basis without any other allowance or benefits.

3.1 It is the case of the respondent that no regular pay scale was given to him even after a period of more than 8 years of service as a daily wager and on reaching the age of superannuation, the respondent would not be entitled to retirement benefits such as pension, provident fund, gratuity or any other kind of leave such as casual leave, earned leave or medical leave.

3.2 It is also the case of the respondent that daily- wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department, who were otherwise equal to the respondent in all respects were entitled to a scheme launched by Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Roads and Buildings Department which gave a quasi- permanent status to them and even though the Forest and Environment Department finds mention in the preamble of the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, it was not made applicable to the daily-wagers of the Forest and Environment Department.

3.3 It is the case of the respondent that the said Government Resolution was selectively applied to the daily-wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department.

3.4 Thereafter being aggrieved by the said Government Resolution, the daily-wagers of the Forest Department filed various Writ Petitions before this Court since 2008 and the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions (C) No.13619-13620 of 2012 preferred by the appellants against the Oral Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1754 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No.88 of 2012. The Hon'ble Apex Court by its Judgment dated 09.07.2013 in State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees' Union and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5321-5322 of 2013 reported in(2013) 12 SCC 417 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.13619-13620 of 2012, directed the State Government to grant the benefits of the scheme as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily- wage workers of the Forests and Environment Department who had worked for more than 5 years.

3.5 Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Special Civil Application No.13240 of 2012 and other connected matters came to be disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Common Oral Judgment dated 16.04.2014 wherein this Court allowed the petition, directing