Distirct Rural Development ... vs Gujarat Labour Federation
2021 Latest Caselaw 14329 Guj

      C/LPA/734/2021                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 734 of 2021
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3407 of 2019
                                  With
          CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
               In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 734 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
R.M.CHHAYA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                     No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                              No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                    No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                    No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       DISTIRCT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
                                      Versus
                            GUJARAT LABOUR FEDERATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
          JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                 Date : 17/09/2021




                                     Page 1 of 10

                                                           Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 15:54:41 IST 2022
       C/LPA/734/2021                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021



                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI)

1 By way of this appeal under Clause 15 of

the Letters Patent, the present appellant - original

respondent No.1 has challenged the order dated

20.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in

Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019, whereby

the learned Single Judge while disposing the said

petition held that the concerned workman shall be

entitled and eligible to all consequential benefits

and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988. The present appellant is the original

respondent No.1 and the present respondent No.1 is

the original petitioner in Special Civil Application

No.3407 of 2019.

2 Brief facts giving rise to filing of the

present appeal are as under.

2.1 The present respondent workman preferred

Reference (Demand) No.33 of 2019 before the Labour

Court, Godhra praying for benefits of Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was the case of the

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

respondent workman before the Labour Court that since

16.07.1995 he was working as Peon under the present

appellant. Further, he completed more than 14 years

service and entitled for the benefits flowing from

the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, however,

the benefits of the said Government Resolution were

not extended to him though the same were extended to

other similarly situated employees.

2.2 Before the Labour Court, Godhra written

statement was filed and a stand was taken by the

appellant that the Government Resolution dated

17.08.1988 is applicable only to the employees of

Roads and Building Department and the Government has

cancelled the said Government Resolution by

subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.03.1995

and the benefits of the said Government Resolution

will not be given to any other persons except the

persons serving in Roads and Building Department as

daily-wagers. It was also contended that appointment

of the respondent workman is irregular appointment

and purely on adhoc basis, and therefore also, he is

not entitled to the benefits flowing from the

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2.3 The Labour Court, Godhra vide its award

dated 15.01.2018 held that the respondent workman is

entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988, but considering the

scheme of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988

which prescribed for periodical fixation of pay

scale, directed that the services of the respondent

workman be treated as notional till 16.07.2005 by

taking into consideration his date of appointment as

16.07.1985 and the respondent workman be paid all the

benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988 from 16.07.2005. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was

ordered to be paid to the workman.

2.4 Aforesaid award dated 15.01.2018 was

challenged by the present appellant by way of filing

Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018, whereas

the same award was challenged by the respondent

workman by filing Special Civil Application No.3047

of 2019 to the extent of not granting arrears from

1995 to 2005 to the workman as per the Government

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2.5 The learned Single Judge vide common

judgment and order dated 20.06.2019 dismissed Special

Civil Application No.13798 of 2018 preferred by the

present appellant and disposed of Special Civil

Application No.3407 of 2019 preferred by the workman

by holding that the workman shall be entitled and

eligible to all consequential benefits and arrears as

per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2.6 Since the present Letters Patent Appeal is

preferred only against the judgment dated 20.06.2019

passed in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019

wherein the respondent workman challenged the award

dated 15.01.1988 only to the extent of denying the

benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988 for the period from 1995 to 2005, the

arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the

parties are considered bearing in mind the fact that

the petition preferred by the appellant being Special

Civil Application No.13798 of 2018 though also was

dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2019, the present

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

appeal is preferred only in respect of Special Civil

Application No.3407 of 2019, which was originally

preferred by respondent workman only for the limited

purpose of denying the benefits of Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent

workman.

3 We have heard Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned

counsel for the respondent - workman.

4. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has

committed an error that the respondent workman was

appointed in the organization irregularly without

following the prescribed procedure, purely on

temporary and adhoc basis, and therefore, the

respondent workman is not entitled to the benefits of

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was also

contended by Mr. Munshaw that granting benefits of

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the

respondent workman would amount to granting the

benefit of regularization to a person, who is

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

appointed by way of backdoor entry. It was also

contended by Mr. Munshaw that granting such benefit

in favour of respondent workman would also result

into financial burden on the public exchequer, and

therefore also, the judgment of the learned Single

Judge deserves to be quashed.

5 As against the above, Mr. Dipak Dave,

learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted

that the law in respect of extending benefits of

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is well

settled by now. There are catena of judgments

governing the field, which can be seen and from which

it can be clearly seen that the respondent workman

cannot be said to be a person not entitled to such

benefits and similarly situated persons are already

enjoying the benefits of Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988. He further submitted that a Division

Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2015

passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.837 of 2015 while

confirming the order of the learned Single Judge has

extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988 in respect of similarly situated persons.

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent workman

further submitted that Letters Patent Appeal in

respect of Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018

challenging the impugned judgment, came to be

rejected at the stage of condonation of delay itself

would suggest that the present appeal is preferred

only in respect of denial of benefit of Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for a period of 1995 to

2005. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent

workman further submitted that the grounds canvassed

by Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant in

respect of his contentions cannot be said to be the

grounds to interfere with the award of the Labour

Court, which was confirmed by the learned Single

Judge and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6 Having heard learned counsels for the

parties and on perusal of the judgment dated

20.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge as well

as the award dated 15.01.2018 of the Labour Court,

Godhra in Reference (Demand) No.33 of 1999 it is

undisputed fact that the respondent workman was

serving the present appellant from 16.07.1985 and at

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

no point of time either before the Labour Court or

before the learned Single Judge, the length of

service of the respondent workman was questioned.

Even the Labour Court has observed that the present

appellant admitted before the Labour court that the

respondent workman was serving under the present

appellant from 16.07.1985. It was also not in dispute

that the respondent workman worked for more than 240

days in each year. The only ground to deny the

benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to

the respondent workman was that vide subsequent

circular dated 30.03.1995, the benefits of Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were confined only to the

daily wagers of Roads and Buildings Department, which

according to us is no ground to deny benefit of

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the

respondent workman as after the aforesaid circular

dated 30.03.1995 much water has been flown in all

these years. The law with regard to Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is no more res integra

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have in

catena of decisions reiterated the same. Having

noticed that no other material was ever produced

C/LPA/734/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021

before the Labour Court or before the learned Single

Judge which may compel us to take a contrary view, we

are not in a position to disagree with the view taken

by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned

Single Judge after taking into consideration the

material available on record and after examining the

impugned award dated 15.01.2018 has arrived at a just

and proper conclusion that the respondent workman is

entitled and eligible to consequential benefits and

arrears as per the Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988. We are in complete agreement with the

view taken by the learned Single Judge.

In view of the above, the present appeal lacks

merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently,

connected Civil Application stands disposed off.

(THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA, J)

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM