Dodiyar Pratapbhai Ramabhai vs Rajivkumar Gupta Or His Successor ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7019 Guj

     C/MCA/999/2019                                          ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
         R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 999 of 2019
      In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12518 of 2008
==========================================================
                DODIYAR PRATAPBHAI RAMABHAI
                           Versus
     RAJIVKUMAR GUPTA OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE - THE
                 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS KIRAN D PANDEY(3337) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS VRUNDA SHAH, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,3
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
                    Date : 05/08/2022
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

1. This application has been filed by the applicants - some of the original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008 and allied matters.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for the applicants, learned AGP Ms. Vrunda Shah for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. D. M. Devnani for respondent No.2.

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the present applicants, along with others, filed Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008 before this Court, in which, the present applicants requested for quashing and setting aside the decision dated 30.03.2007 taken by the respondent authority and also sought direction against the respondent authority to give the benefit of placing them in the minimum pay-scale and further grant them the benefit as per the agreement dated 01.10.1988. By way of amendment, the applicants - petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside the Executive Order - Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 passed by the concerned respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.04.2019, partly allowed the petition and thereby gave direction in para 18 of the said order, which reads as under:

"18.The entire scheme of the Panam Project was invited by the Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat. By the judgment of the Apex Court, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is conferred to the daily- wagers of all departments. Thus, as the law enunciated by the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (supra), all the daily-wagers, who are working in the departments of the State Government, are conferred by the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Since the same is made applicable to all the daily- wagers, the benefits flowing from the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988 are required to be conferred to the afore-noted petitioners. Such petitioners were

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

engaged by the Forest and Environment Department and not by the GFDC. They are entitled to the benefit as per the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No. 386 of 1988. If the petitioners had remained under the Forest Department, they would have benefited from the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees Union (supra). Thus, the petitioners cannot be denied either the benefits of the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988 to the afore-noted 12 petitioners or the benefit emanating from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees (Supra). The respondent - State is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders granting the similar benefit to the aforementioned petitioners which was granted to the daily-wagers, who were engaged in the Panam Project."

4. It is further submitted that as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the respondents are required to grant the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily-wagers working in the various departments and who were working in Panam Project at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that some of the original petitioners were, thereafter, transferred to respondent No.2 - Corporation, in spite of that the learned Single Judge issued direction to the respondent - State to pass appropriate orders granting the benefit which was given to the concerned daily-wagers working in various departments. A reliance is also placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors., v. PWD Employees Union & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417. Learned advocate, therefore, urged

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

that though this Court has issued specific direction to the respondent - State Government, they have not intentionally and deliberately complied with the said direction.

5. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicants has fairly submitted that the respondents filed Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021 and allied matters before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench passed an order on 21.01.2022, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents were partly allowed.

6. At this stage, it is further submitted that in another appeal filed by the respondent - State being Letters Patent Appeal No.321 of 2022, the Division Bench has passed an order on 15.06.2022, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent - State is partly allowed. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has referred the relevant observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in para 4.1 and 5 of the order dated 15.06.2022.

7. At this stage, once again, learned advocate Mr. Mishra would submit that in the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of this Court has reproduced para 18 of the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008 and in the said paragraph the learned Single Judge has specifically issued direction to the

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

respondent State to grant similar benefits, which were granted to 12 employees by the concerned Labour Court by passing Award dated 11.05.1992 in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988. The learned advocate, therefore, urged that the said benefit is not granted by the respondent State to the applicants and thereby the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the applicants, therefore, urged that this application be allowed and proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against the respondents.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shah has opposed this application and submitted that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 12.04.2019 is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court to the limited extent. Learned AGP has referred the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in para 9, 10 and 11 of the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021 and allied matters. Learned AGP submitted that as per the said decision rendered by the Division Bench, the benefit as directed by the learned Single Judge is to be granted to only 12 employees and such benefit is already granted to all the 12 employees including three applicants herein (i.e. applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 10 - original petitioner Nos. 1, 26 and 24

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

respectively). Learned AGP, therefore, contended that the respondents have complied with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, which is partly confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, it is urged that there is no deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order or direction issued by the learned Single Judge by the present respondents, as alleged by the applicants. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.

9. Learned advocate Mr. D. M. Devnani appearing for the respondent No.2 has also supported the submissions canvassed by learned AGP and also referred the relevant observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two orders.

10. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material placed on record. It has emerged from the record that the present applicants were the original petitioners who filed a petition being Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008 along with the other petitioners for the reliefs as observed hereinabove. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.04.2019, partly allowed the said petition and thereby directed the respondent - State to grant the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily-wagers who were working in Panam Project

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

and thereafter transferred to respondent No.2 - Corporation. Learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the Award dated 11.05.1992 passed by the concerned Labour Court in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988, whereby, the concerned Labour Court issued certain directions to the respondent - State. Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees Union (supra). Learned Single Judge directed the respondent - State that similar benefit which was granted to 12 employees be given to all the daily-wagers working with the respondents who were engaged in the Panam Project. It is not in dispute that the present respondents filed Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021 and allied matters before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the said appeal vide order dated 21.01.2022. The Division Bench has observed in para 8, 9, 10 and 11 as under:

"8. The aforesaid petitioners were the left out lot. Panam Project was by the Forest & Environment Department of the State Government and undisputedly the said petitioners were employed by the State Government. In that view, learned Single Judge was justified in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in PWD Employees Union (supra) to support his direction to sustain the direction to grant the benefits to the petitioners.

9. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment which was the part of the order in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, following observations were made by learned Single Judge.

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

"18. The entire scheme of the Panam Project was invited by the Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat. By the judgment of the Apex Court, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is conferred to the daily-wagers of all departments. Thus, as the law enunciated by the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (supra), all the daily-wagers, who are working in the departments of the State Government, are conferred by the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Since the same is made applicable to all the dailywagers, the benefits flowing from the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988 are required to be conferred to the afore-noted petitioners. Such petitioners were engaged by the Forest and Environment Department and not by the GFDC. They are entitled to the benefit as per the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No. 386 of 1988. If the petitioners had remained under the Forest Department, they would have benefited from the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees Union (supra). Thus, the petitioners cannot be denied either the benefits of the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988 to the afore-noted 12 petitioners or the benefit emanating from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees (Supra). The respondent - State is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders granting the similar benefit to the aforementioned petitioners which was granted to the daily-wagers, who were engaged in the Panam Project."

10. For the reasons recorded above, we are in agreement with the reasons recorded in aforesaid paragraph entitling the 12 petitioners of the said petition to the benefit emanating from the judgment of the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (supra). Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order of learned Single Judge insofar as

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

related to said petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, is sustained to the above limited extent.

11. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021 is allowed by setting aside the directions as above which would also apply mutatis mutandis to the case in that regard in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008. For the rest of the controversy in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, Letters Patent Appeal No.914 of 2021 is partly allowed as above. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Both the Civil Applications do not survive and disposed of."

11. In the meantime, respondent - State has also preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.321 of 2022 and recently the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 15.06.2022, wherein, the Division Bench has observed in para 4.1 and 5 as under:

"4.1 In the aforementioned decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2021 and allied appeals,

are extracted,

7. While the above order will govern both the Letters Patent Appeals, as far as Letters Patent Appeal No.914 of 2021 relatable to order in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, is concerned and in particular, petitioner Nos.1, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 32 of the said petition in particular are concerned, they belong to the class who were denied the benefit of award dated 11th May, 1992 of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988. The denial of the benefit of the Tribunal to those petitioners was on the ground that they were not party to the proceedings which resulted into order dated 22nd November, 2010 of the Division Bench in

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

Letters Patent Appeal No.2136 of 2010. They were daily wagers of one Panam Project and were employed by the State Government in the said Project. They were noted to be fulfilling the criteria of 240 days and four years or more or 900 days of service preceding to 01st January, 1989 to be entitled to extension of benefits which were given to the other similarly situated daily rated workmen. Learned Single Judge and thereafter the Letters Patent Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.2136 of 2010 directed the authorities to grant such benefits to the class of such daily rated employees.

8. The aforesaid petitioners were the left out lot. Panam Project was by the Forest & Environment Department of the State Government and undisputedly the said petitioners were employed by the State Government. In that view, learned Single Judge was justified in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in PWD Employees Union (supra) to support his direction to sustain the direction to grant the benefits to the petitioners.

9. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment which was the part of the order in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, following observations were made by learned Single Judge. "18. The entire scheme of the Panam Project was invited by the Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat. By the judgment of the Apex Court, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is conferred to the daily-wagers of all departments. Thus, as the law enunciated by the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (supra), all the daily-wagers, who are working in the departments of the State Government, are conferred by the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Since the same is made applicable to all the dailywagers, the benefits flowing from the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988 are required to be

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

conferred to the afore-noted petitioners. Such petitioners were engaged by the Forest and Environment Department and not by the GFDC. They are entitled to the benefit as per the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No. 386 of 1988. If the petitioners had remained under the Forest Department, they would have benefited from the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees Union (supra). Thus, the petitioners cannot be denied either the benefits of the award dated 11.05.1992 passed in Reference (IT) No.386 of 1988 to the afore-noted 12 petitioners or the benefit emanating from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees (Supra). The respondent - State is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders granting the similar benefit to the aforementioned petitioners which was granted to the daily-wagers, who were engaged in the Panam Project."

10. For the reasons recorded above, we are in agreement with the reasons recorded in aforesaid paragraph entitling the 12 petitioners of the said petition to the benefit emanating from the judgment of the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (supra). Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order of learned Single Judge insofar as related to said petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, is sustained to the above limited extent.

11. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021 is allowed by setting aside the directions as above which would also apply mutatis mutandis to the case in that regard in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008. For the rest of the controversy in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, Letters Patent Appeal No.914 of 2021 is partly allowed as above. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Both the Civil Applications do not survive and disposed of.

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

5. It goes without saying that aforesaid observations and decision will govern the rights of the parties in the present case as well. This Letters Patent Appeal requires no further consideration. Accordingly, it stands disposed of."

12. Thus, from the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021 and allied matters, it is absolutely clear that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in para 18 of the order dated 12.04.2019 in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008 and allied matters is confirmed to the limited extent by granting the benefit to 12 petitioners. The other directions issued by the learned Single Judge in para 18 of the order dated 12.04.2019 is set aside. Once again similar order has been passed by the Division Bench on 15.06.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal No.321 of 2022. Thus, from the aforesaid orders passed by the Division Bench, it is clear that the respondents are required to grant the benefit to 12 daily-wagers as observed in para 18 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and not to all the daily-wagers who were engaged in Panam Project.

13. The concerned respondent has also filed an affidavit before this Court pointing out that the benefit as directed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court has

C/MCA/999/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022

been granted to applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 10, who were part of 12 employees. Thus, we are of the view that there is no intentional and willful disobedience of the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12518 of 2008, as alleged by the applicants herein. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this application. Accordingly, application is dismissed.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI