ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.2021, whereby the learned Labour Court, Rajkot has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in lieu of compassionate appointment to the respondent-legal heir of the deceased employee.

2. Learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased husband of the respondent no.1 was working as a Rojamdar/daily wager and therefore, was not covered under any government resolutions. She submits that in view thereof, the learned Labour Court ought not to have entertained the recovery application preferred by the respondent. She submits that the respondent no.1 has failed to place any document on record to show that her husband was appointed as a regular employee after following due procedure of law as a Class-III or Class-IV employee. She submits that in absence of any documentary evidence showing her eligibility to receive lump sum compensation, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. She further submits that the respondent has preferred a recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for short) without there being any adjudication of the rights of the respondent no.1 decided under Section 10(1) of the ID Act. She submits that without proper adjudication of the right and entitlement of the respondent no.1, no recovery application could have been entertained by the learned Labour Court. In support of her contentions, she relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 629, wherein it has been held that the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act applies only to claims based on pre-existing rights or entitlements that are already adjudicated or recognized. She submits that in the present case there is no adjudication and therefore also, the recovery application was not maintainable. She has further submitted that the daily wagers are not treated as any Class-IV employees as per the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 nor they are government servants as defined under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. She, therefore, submits that the respondent no.1 cannot claim the benefit of lump sum compensation under the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016, which is specifically framed for the regular government servants, who have been appointed by following due recruitment procedure. She submits that the impugned award be quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Chauhan appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in the present case it is not in dispute that the deceased workman was a permanent cleaner working with the petitioner. He submits that looking at his length of service, the deceased employee was also granted the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for regularization of his services. He further submits that upon the death of the employee, the respondent was paid gratuity, group insurance, pension etc. He submits that the respondent no.1 was covered under the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016. He submits that since the said right to compensation is recognized under the government resolution, the recovery application has been rightly entertained by the learned Labour Court and the benefit has also been correctly granted to the respondent. He submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016 since the husband of the respondent had expired while in service. He, therefore, submits that the present petition be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the documents on record and considered the submissions.

5. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1073 of 2023 vide order dated 10.08.2