ORAL JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr.U.M.Shashtri learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to hold that the petitioner has completed pensionable service and therefore he is entitled to the benefits of pension.

4. It is a prayer of the petitioner that Sundays and public holidays may be counted for computing the length of service of the petitioner for the purposes of pension.

5. According to the respondents, since the petitioner’s date of appointment in consonance with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act is 01.04.2000 and since he retired on 31.03.2005, he has completed only five years of service and therefore he is not entitled to pension.

6. Mr.Dipak Dave learned advocate for the petitioner would rely on the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.15601 of 2020, wherein, the Court after considering the decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1495 of 1997, after discussing the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation., reported in (1985) 4 SCC 71, held as under:

“7 Even in the decision of the Division Bench, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2047 of 2004 dated 29.03.2016, the Division Bench held as under:

“6. That learned Single Judge after adverting to sub Section (1) of Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947 vis-a-vis Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 held as under:

Therefore, in view of the observations made by this Court as well as the Hon'ble apex court in aforesaid decisions and also in view of the definition of the term 'continuous service' given in section 25-B of the ID Act as interpreted by the apex court in case of American Express (supra), now, I am considering the effect of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Item 3 page 30 of the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 provides that those daily wager who has completed the service of more than ten years as provided under section 25(B)

shall be considered permanent and such permanent labour shall be placed in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 plus other allowances. As per the said item 3 of the said GR, it has been resolved that such daily wagers should be given the pension, gratuity, general provident fund in accordance with the existing rules and regulations and they would be entitled for Sunday leave and national holidays leave over and above two leave per year as well as 14 days casual leave, 30 days' earned leave and 20 days half pay leave. Thus, bare reading of item 3 of the said resolution would make it clear that if the daily wager is satisfies that he has completed ten years service as required under section 25-B of the ID Act, 1947, then, he is entitled to become permanent employee of the respondent establishment. This is the only condition incorporated in item 3 of the said resolution dated 17.10.88 entitling the daily wager for claiming benefit of pension. Even the clarification which has been brought to the notice of this court. First item No.2 is also making it clear that if the daily wager has remained in continuous service as defined under section 25B of the ID Act and similarly to consider the rest of the years, then, such workman is entitled for the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.88. Item 38 and 39 thereof also saying the same thing that if the daily wager has completed 240 days continuous service in each year as defined under section 25B of the ID Act, and if the workman has completed ten years of service on the basis of such calculation for every year, then, he is entitled for the benefit of pension from the respondent establishment. It is m