Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Forest Development ... vs Mantri, Rashtriya Mazdoor Union on 30 March, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/19098/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19098 of 2018
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Versus
MANTRI, RASHTRIYA MAZDOOR UNION & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D.J. BHATT, ADVOCATE for
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 30/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Mankad, waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.12 of 2009, wherein
and whereby, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to give
the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 to the workmen.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. D.J. Bhatt, appearing
for the petitioner has submitted that the Industrial Tribunal fell
in error by allowing the reference and directing the petitioner
to give the benefit of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988, since the said resolution, which is promulgated by
the State Government, will not apply to the petitioner
Corporation. In support of his submissions, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench dated
21.01.2022 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2021.
Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be set
aside.
C/SCA/19098/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Rajesh P. Mankad,
appearing for the respondent workmen has submitted that the
impugned order may not be disturbed, since all the workmen
have rendered more than 20 years of service and after
rendering so many years of service, they cannot be denied the
benefit of regularization or benefit flowing from the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and also perused the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal.
6. It is interesting to note that the terms of reference, which
are incorporated in the award, reads as under:- (Translated
from the original Gujarati).
"Whether all the workmen, whose names have been
stated in the schedule appended herewith, should be given
appointment on permanent basis and all the benefits
entitled to permanent employees should be given to them
or not?"
6.1 Thus, the terms of the reference was specific that
whether the respondent workmen are required to be
regularized and accordingly, are entitled to consequential
benefits, however, it appears that during the course of hearing,
the workmen have in fact raised the issue with regard to grant
of the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. The entire reference proceeded on such premise.
The petitioner Corporation denied the same by contending that
the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is not applicable
C/SCA/19098/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
to the workmen. Accordingly, after hearing the respective
parties, by the impugned order dated 08.06.2018, the
reference is allowed by directing the petitioner to pay the
benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988.
6.2 Thus, the Tribunal has conferred the benefits flowing
from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen. The
Division Bench, while examining the aforesaid issue, in case of
the very same petitioner-Corporation i.e. the Gujarat State
Forest Development Corporation, has held that the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, issued by the State
Government, will not apply to the Corporation. It is held thus :-
"6. In view of the above discussion, the direction of learned
Single Judge to the respondents to undertake necessary exercise
and to frame the scheme, or in the alternate, adopt Government
Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 in order to void the
discrimination, is hereby set aside. The reasons supplied in
the judgment in support of the said directions are also set
aside. There would be no such mandamus to the respondent-State
Government on the said counts.
6.1 At the same time, it is observed that setting aside of the
directions of learned Single Judge as above would not operate
as preclusion for the respondent-State Government, if the State
Government in its discretionary domain, after taking into
consideration the relevant aspects and the data, is inclined to
frame any scheme or grant further service benefits of any kind
and nature to the daily rated employees of the respondent-
Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation on the lines of
the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 or any other manner.
The decision about such exercise to be undertaken or not is
entirely left at the wisdom and discretion of the State
Government."
6.3 However, the issue which remains to be examined that
whether the Industrial Tribunal should have at all examined the
applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 in
the case of the respondent workmen or not. The terms of the
reference was very specific that whether the benefit of
regularization shall be conferred to the respondent workmen
along with the consequential benefits. However, the Tribunal
misdirected itself and ultimately, has directed the petitioner
C/SCA/19098/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
Corporation to confer the benefits of Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988, which is in fact, not applicable to the
petitioner Corporation. Thus, the only issue which was required
to be examined by the Labour Court was that whether the
respondent workmen, after rendering respective years of
service, are entitled to the regularization or not. The benefits
arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, are
absolutely different and is the scheme which is framed by the
State Government to grant the benefits to those employees
who are completed 5, 10 and 15 years of service. In the
present case, the Industrial Tribunal should have examined
that after completion of so many years of service, whether the
respondent workmen are entitled to be regularised on the very
same post or not. Under the circumstances, the Industrial
Tribunal has misdirected itself in issuing such directions of
conferring the benefits flowing of the Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988.
7. Thus, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order
dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara
in Reference (IT) No.12 of 2009, is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The Reference
(IT) No.12 of 2009 is restored in its original file. The Tribunal
shall, after hearing the respective parties, shall pass
appropriate orders, in light of the observations made by this
Court and confine its observations and findings to the terms of
the reference. Since the reference is of the year 2009, it is
expected that the Tribunal shall decide the same within a
period of one year. Rule is made absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MAHESH BHATI/51
