Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Deputy ... vs Bhavanaben Paragbhai Rawal Wd/O Late ... on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6772 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
BHAVANABEN PARAGBHAI RAWAL WD/O LATE PARAGBHAI
KISHORBHAI RAWAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAYANK CHAVDA, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JIGNESH D LAMBA for the Respondent(s)No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the respondent namely Mr.Lamba states at bar that as the amount towards the leave encashment has already been paid with interest therefore, if the directions issued by this Court is set aside qua the relief of reinstatement then he would not have any objection.
3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs:
"9b. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Execution Application No.12 of 2022 interalia issuing the recovery certificate dated 08.12.2022 in Recovery Application Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined 33(C)(2) No.85 of 2019, 71 of 2019 annexed as Annexure-B,C and D."
4. The gist of the case is that the husband of the respondent was serving as a daily wager on the post of Clerk since 16.10.1984. Upon completion of 10 years of service, his services came to be regularized in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, vide order dated 01.08.1995. On 30.07.2018, the husband of the respondent passed away, and at the time of his death, his basic pay scale was Rs.35,000/-. Upon his demise, the legal heirs of the deceased workman received the terminal benefits, including gratuity, provident fund, and family pension. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ('the I.D.Act' hereinafter), being Recovery Application No.85 of 2019, seeking lump sum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on compassionate grounds as per the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016, along with 18% interest and costs of Rs.25,000/-. The said application was contested by the present petitioner on the ground that although the services of the deceased were regularized pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, he was appointed as a permanent daily wager Clerk, and therefore, the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016 would not be applicable to daily wagers, casual workers, apprentices, ad-hoc employees, etc. Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined 4.1. The learned Labour Court, after assigning detailed reasons, directed the present petitioner to pay lump sum compensation on compassionate grounds to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% vide order dated 14.10.2021. As the said order was not complied with, the respondent filed an application under Section 33C(1) of the I.D.Act, being Recovery Application No.12 of 2022, seeking enforcement of the order dated 14.10.2021 along with a claim for leave encashment of Rs.3,81,500/- with interest at the rate of 12%. The learned Labour Court, vide order dated 07.12.2022, allowed the said application and directed the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,81,500/- towards leave encashment with 12% interest, and an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards lump sum compensation on compassionate grounds with interest at the rate of 8% from 22.10.2021 till realization. The said order is under challenge in the present petition before this Court
5. Heard the learned AGP Mr.Chavda for the State and on advance copy on behalf of the respondent-workman.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Chavda submits that the benefits under Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016, which have been granted to the present respondent (being the heir of the deceased employee), cannot be extended as the respondent does not fulfill the conditions prescribed under the said Government Resolutions. Learned AGP Mr. Chavda submits that the Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined deceased employee was initially engaged on a daily wage basis and, though his services were later regularized, such regularization was only for the limited benefits as contemplated under G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Therefore, no further or additional benefits beyond those specified in the said G.R. can be extended to the heirs of the deceased employee. Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in directing the present petitioner to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest by exercising powers under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Lamba has extensively argued that though the initial appointment of the employee was on a daily wage basis, his services were subsequently regularized vide order dated 01.08.1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased continued to be a daily wager for the remainder of his service tenure. Learned advocate Mr. Lamba further submits that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as it is already settled by various decisions of this Hon'ble Court, including the judgment rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1073 of 2023, which came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.01.2025. Accordingly, learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Lamba submits that in view of the settled legal position, the present Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that the present petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Execution Application No. 12 of 2022, whereby the recovery certificate dated 08.12.2022 came to be issued in Recovery Applications Nos. 85 of 2019 and 71 of 2019 filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. On perusal of the record, it is evident that there is no specific challenge to the order passed in the substantive recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. Even if the contention of the petitioner is considered that the order under Section 33C(2) is indirectly under challenge along with the order passed under Section 33C(1), which is explicitly impugned in the present petition, it further transpires that the learned Labour Court, while allowing the recovery application under Section 33C(2), has recorded a finding that though the initial appointment of the deceased employee was made on 16.10.1984 as a daily wager, his services were subsequently regularized by an order dated 01.08.1995, and that on his demise on 30.06.2018, all terminal benefits as admissible to a regular employee were granted to his heirs. It is further noted that the impugned order before this Court is of the year 2022, whereas the present petition came to be filed in May 2025, after a considerable delay. The instant Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined petition appears to be an offshoot of the earlier petition filed by the respondent-employee seeking execution of the recovery certificate, being Special Civil Application No. 4101 of 2025, in which this Court has passed the following order dated 02.04.2025:
"Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt states at bar that for execution of recovery certificate, notice under section 200 of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 dated 27.03.2025 is issued. It appears that on filing this petition actions were initiated for the execution of the recovery certificate which was issued in the months of December, 2022.
In view of the above, the matter is relisted on 08.05.2025.
If, on the next date of hearing, the recovery certificate remains unexecuted or if the defaulter remains unsuccessful in obtaining the orders of staying the recovery certificate, then the learned Collector shall personally remain present before this Court."
8.1. It appears that the petitioner authority has filed and circulated the present petition only after this Court directed the concerned officer to remain personally present in connection with the execution proceedings listed on 08.05.2025, wherein directions were issued to respondent No.1, i.e., the Collector, to remain present. This sudden action on the part of the petitioner clearly indicates a belated response triggered by the directive for personal appearance issued by this Court. Insofar as the merits of the petition are concerned, the issue relating to the applicability of the Government Resolutions dated Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 has already been adjudicated and settled by this Court in several earlier petitions.
8.2. This Court in Special Civil Application No.15343 of 2023 has observed as under:
"5. In facts of the present case, learned Judge after considering the decision in case of State of Gujarat v. Nathabhai Ghemarbhai Parmar in Special Civil Application No.1795/2013 which was carried in appeal being LPA No. 1234/2017 has awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 read with Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016.
6. Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1234/2017 vide order dated 04.08.2017 has held as under:
"8. In this case, it is not in dispute that late father of the respondent herein was initially appointed as a daily wager and thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 28.03.2008. A copy of such order is also placed on record. As per the terms of the said order, it is made clear that late father of the respondent herein would be entitled to the benefits of regular employees including retiral benefits, seniority, etc. There is also specific observation that in the event of a proposal for resignation, notice of resignation also should be issued before tendering the resignation. Further, we have also perused the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. While it is true that para 3 clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 states that such scheme of paying compensation amount is applicable to the employees, who are regularly recruited persons, but there is a specific clause which excludes applicability of the scheme to the category of persons namely, daily wager, casual worker, apprentice, adhoc, contract or reemployment. If both the clauses are conjointly read, it is clear that this scheme is to be extended to all the persons, who are on regular services on the date of death of the deceased Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined employee. As the scheme itself is a beneficial scheme for the employees, who die in harness, the respondent herein cannot be denied the same on the ground that late father of the respondent was initially recruited as a daily wager. While it is also true that initially late father of the respondent was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1981, after considering his length of services, his services were regularized with effect from 1.1.1986, extending all the benefits payable to regular employees vide order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the appellant No.2 herein. If the conditions of regularisation order given while appointing the late father of the respondent herein are considered, with reference to various clauses under the scheme of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, we are of the view that the respondent herein is entitled for all the benefits. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. V. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., reported in 2011(2) GLR 1290 has held in paragraph No.5 as under:
"5. Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently rebranded as "daily wager" (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently rebranded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best "permanent daily wage employees", is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment except for the clarification made hereunder."
7. In facts of the case it is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent was working with the petitioner since 24.03.1983 and during the service tenure, the husband of the petitioner expired on 16.12.2018. Therefore, the respondent workman had rendered service for about 35 years with the petitioner. The petitioner did not grant the benefits of Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 only on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was a daily wager. However, in view of the above quoted decision, the Labour Court has rightly awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- as per the Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016. Labour Court has also considered the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manager, Naaz Cinema v. Vasantben Rameshbhai Ghumandiya (Judgement dated 31.05.2011 rendered in LPA No.1198/2009) wherein it is held that Labour Court is having wide powers if satisfied that due and undisputed amount of the workman was withheld by the employer without justification, the Labour Court has certainly powers to grant interest upon due amount. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has granted the benefit of permanent employee to the deceased workman with effect from 20.03.2008.
8. Considering the facts of the case and in view of decision of this Court, the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Labour Court No.2 Rajkot in Recovery(C-2) Application No.95 of 2022 is hereby confirmed as no interference is required while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
8.3. This Court has also taken a consistent view that the lumpsum compensation under the scheme provided by the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 cannot be denied solely on the ground that the initial Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined appointment of the deceased workman was on a daily wage basis, and that, though he was subsequently regularized, he continued as a permanent daily wager. While dismissing Special Civil Application No.21916 of 2023, this Court has observed as under:
"4. Considered the submissions. The fact that husband of the respondent working with the office of petitioner No.2 from 17.12.1980 and his services came to be regularised with effect from 01.01.1996, are not in dispute. Workman died while in service and the respondent being widow of the workman filed an application seeking benefits under Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. After application by the respondent, an office order dated 26.04.2016, was passed approving payment of lumpsum compensation to the respondent. However, the said office order dated 26.04.2016, was thereafter withdrawn by an another office order dated 18.05.2016 with the reason that Rojamdar, casual worker, apprentice and ad-hoc employee are not entitled for benefits as envisaged under Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Thereafter, Labour Court relying upon Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, allowed the application and granted compensation. Learned AGP could not dispute that this issue has been considered by this court in SCA 3127 of 2022.
5. The issue has been considered by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 3127 of 2022, wherein this court has held as under: -
"4. Per contra, Learned AGP Mr.Trivedi for the State has submitted that the Government cannot grant the benefit to the petitioners and has drawn attention towards Clause 3 of the said Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 which stipulates that the Rojamdar casual labourer would not be provided said benefit Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 to grant lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment.
4.1. Learned AGP has further submitted that the petitioner No.1's husband had worked as daily wager with the respondents' authorities and has passed away while he was in service and therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled to claim lump sum compensation under the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Learned AGP has drawn attention towards the order passed in Special Lave Appeal No.7229 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 and has submitted that any daily wager / employee granted the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would not confer on such employee or daily wager status of permanent or regular employee.
4.2. The petitioner No.1's husband was employed as daily wager with the respondent authorities and he was granted benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and therefore, learned AGP has opposed this petition. Mr.Trivedi has submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned Government Resolution dated 13.10.2015 in his representation before the Authority and therefore, the authority has not taken into consideration the said Government Resolution while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Learned AGP has submitted that this petition may be rejected.
5. Considering the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and also considering the fact that the husband of the petitioner was serving with the respondents department for more than 35 years, the department has already granted benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and considering the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1234 of 2017, more Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof, which is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, this petition needs to be allowed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed: -
6.1. This petition is allowed.
6.2. The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in lieu of compassionate compensation as per Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011, 13.10.2015 and 07.04.2016, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., within a period of eight weeks from today. Direct service is permitted."
6. In view of above, the award dated 28.04.2023 passed by Labour Court, Rajkot in Recovery Application No.101 of 2022 does not call for any interference and therefore, this petition is rejected. No order as to costs."
8.4. Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.1073 of 2023 has observed as under:
"7.The issue whether the compassionate appointment/ lumpsum compensation scheme could be extended in the cases of daily rated workmen securing benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 came up for consideration before the Court in Fatmabai Abdul Sumra vs. State of Gujarat, which were Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021 and another decided on 14.02.2022 and again in Gauriben Hargovinbhai Vaghela vs. Secretary, Narmada and Water Resources Department in Special Civil Application No. 2884 of 2022, decided on 20.04.2022.
7.1 In those cases, learned Single Judge held otherwise. It was noticed that the decision in Javeed A Surangi Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined (supra), in Suresh Maganbhai Chavda (supra) and Dharmeshgiri Balvantgiri Goswami (supra) taking the view that benefit of compassionate scheme would not be available to the daily rated workmen was without noticing the binding observations of the Division Bench in State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas [2011 (2) GLR 1290]. The view was taken by the Division Bench is inter alia that there was no concept such as permanent daily wager and it was strange in service jurisprudence to bring out the nomenclature or concept of permanent daily wager.
7.2 In Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the Division Bench stated thus, "5. ...Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently rebranded as "daily wager" (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently rebranded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best "permanent daily wage employees", is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. Therefore, there is no reason Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined to interfere with the impugned common judgment except for the clarification made hereunder."
7.3 The Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat vs. Nathabhai Ghemarbhai Parmar, which was Letters Patent Appeal No. 1234 of 2017, decided on 04.08.2017 observed thus in paragraph 8, in which also, the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) was relied on, "8. In this case, it is not in dispute that late father of the respondent herein was initially appointed as a daily wager and thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 28.03.2008. A copy of such order is also placed on record. As per the terms of the said order, it is made clear that late father of the respondent herein would be entitled to the benefits of regular employees including retiral benefits, seniority, etc.......Further, we have also perused the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. While it is true that para 3 clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 states that such scheme of paying compensation amount is applicable to the employees, who are regularly recruited persons, but there is a specific clause which excludes applicability of the scheme to the category of persons namely, daily wager, casual worker, apprentice, adhoc, contract or reemployment."
7.3.1 It was further observed and held in same paragraph, "If both the clauses are conjointly read, it is clear that this scheme is to be extended to all the persons, who are on regular services on the date of death of the deceased employee. As the scheme itself is a beneficial scheme for the employees, who die in harness, the respondent herein cannot be denied the same on the ground that late father of the respondent was initially recruited as a daily wager."
7.4 Therefore, there stands a binding proposition of law Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined that a daily rated workman who is extended the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to be considered for permanency benefit on the basis of length of service would derive all attendant benefits and benefits including of the scheme of compassionate appointment. The original status of the daily rated workman would not be an impediment or debilitating factor for the kith and kin of the deceased to claim the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment/compassionate lumpsum payment, provided their case falls within the corners of the scheme.
8. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has rightly taken a view that the petitioner, who was the heir of the deceased daily rated workman would be entitled to be considered for the benefit under the Resolution dated 05.07.2011 for compassionate lumpsum payment even if they were the successor of the deceased daily wager. Learned Single Judge was justified in relying on the decision in Gauriben Hargovinbhai Vaghela (supra) to allow the petition. 8.1 It is therefore directed that the case of the petitioner shall be examined for the purpose of extending the benefit of Resolution dated 05.07.2011 and the petitioner shall be considered for lumpsum compensation under the said scheme provided the petitioner fulfills the conditions of the scheme to fall within the bounds of the scheme and that his claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the deceased employee was a daily wager.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with above observations."
8.5. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was further challenged before the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2025.
Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
9. As the issue is no longer integral, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Reference Court, directing the present petitioner to pay the lumpsum compensation in lieu of the compassionate appointment, is required to be implemented. It is further to be noted that in a number of petitions, the orders passed by the learned Labour Court have not been implemented. Therefore, vide order dated 27.10.2023, this Court passed the following order in Special Civil Application No.181 of 2023.
"8.At this stage, in context of what has been observed hereinabove i.e. the officers of the respondents, not following the decision of this Court resulting in unnecessary wastage of precious time of this Court to reiterate a position of law which has now been confirmed, let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Gujarat, who will take an appropriate decision with regard to formulating a policy on the lines of the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred to hereinabove for grant of benefit under the Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 and other subsequent Government Resolutions, more particularly to ensure the employees who have received the benefit of permanency under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upon their unfortunate demise during service, their legal heirs would be entitled to the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 as modified later on and whereas the State Authorities may be expressly directed that the objection of the original entry of the employees as daily rated employees shall not be taken."
10. In the above background, this Court is of the view that issue is settled by this Court, as confirmed by the Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined Apex Court, that the benefit of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and G.R. dated 07.04.2016 would be applicable to the workman, who has been regularized and granted the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Therefore, the petition filed by the present petitioner is required to be dismissed.
11. It is important to note that the ground raised by learned AGP Mr. Chavda regarding the belated filing of the application is misconceived, as the application under section 33C(2) was filed on 10.06.2019, subsequent to the death of the deceased employee on 30.07.2018.
12. This Court has also referred to the G.R. dated 07.01.2021, wherein the Government has resolved that the application for the payment of lumpsum compensation on compassionate grounds must be collected by the concerned officer. Therefore, the contention regarding the delay is also required to be rejected.
13. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged, except to the part of challenge of direction to pay benefit of leave encashment.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 14 21:48:55 IST 2025