Deputy Executive Engineer vs Shramjivi Kamdar Sandgh (G. R.)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1535 Guj

      C/LPA/1521/2022                                      ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.                 1521 of 2022

       In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10677 of 2017
==========================================================
                           DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                                     Versus
                        SHRAMJIVI KAMDAR SANDGH (G. R.)
==========================================================
Appearance:
ROHAN LAVKUMAR(9248) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ND SONGARA(2198) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                          Date : 14/02/2023
                              ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr. Rohan Lavkumar for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Sonagra for the respondent.

2. The appellant-Deputy Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Nigam Ltd., seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2021. Thereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition of the Executive Engineer and confirmed the judgment and award of the Labour Court, whereby the workmen were held entitled to be granted the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

3. The respondent-Shramjivi Kamdar Sang-Union

C/LPA/1521/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023

invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court, Palanpur, by way of Reference (LCD) No. 1 of 206 raising various demands on behalf of seven workmen named in the award. In the statement of claim (Exh.7), it was the case that all the workmen had been employed under the first party employer as sweeper, pump operator and chowkidar. It was their case that they completed 240 days of continuous service.

3.1 It was stated that though they were liable to be classified as skilled workers, the salary was paid treating them in the category of unskilled workers. It was the case that since the workmen had served continuously, they were entitled to the benefit of permanency available to the regular employees. It was submitted that they were entitled to dearness allowance, house rent allowance, medical allowance, washing allowance and other miscellaneous allowances.

3.2 On the basis of the facts and materials produced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court found the evidence that the workmen had been discharging duties under the said employer continuously and that they had served 240 days in a year.

3.3 Earlier also, the workmen had approached the labour authorities seeking benefit of Dolatbhai Parmar Committee Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to get the benefits thereunder, but since the decision was taken not to terminate their services, it was not further proceeded with.

C/LPA/1521/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023

4 The Labour Court did not accept the stand of the respondent and passed the judgment and award granting benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It transpires from the facts on record that the workmen had been in service on different posts from the year 1993, 1994 and 1996.

4.1 The finding was cogently recorded that they had put in 240 days of service. It was the finding also that they were paid in unskilled category. The documents produced by the first party employer showed, as per the findings of the Labour Court, the days of service put in by each of the workman and details of salary paid to them to become entitled to the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

5. This Court went through the judgment and award of the Labour Court. No infirmity was noticed. The finding could be said to be properly arrived at by the Labour Court. The subject matter was revisited with by the learned Single Judge and the Executive Engineer challenged the said judgment and order by filing Special Civil Application.

5.1 The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. PWD & Forest Employees Union & Ors. [(2019) 3 SCALE 642] as also in State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. PWD Employees Union & Ors.[(2013) 12 SCC 417]. In the said decisions the Apex Court held that the workman of all the departments in the Government were entitled to

C/LPA/1521/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023

the benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on completion of requisite number of years of service. It was held that they are required to be placed in fixed pay scale and on retirement, they would also get pension.

5.2 Learned Single Judge recorded thus in para 6,

"In the present case, it is not in dispute that the workmen of the respondent Union are engaged as Chowkidars, Sweepers and Pump Operators etc. since the year 1993 onwards. Since they are not paid/extended benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, they raised the dispute, which culminated in the aforesaid Reference. The Labour Court after examining the facts and material before it, has held that the workmen are entitled to extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Labour Court has also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.W.D. Employees (Supra). "

6. Having considered the facts, the material on record, the judgment and award of Labour Court was rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge. In the facts of the case, the benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 do flow for the workman.

7. No interference is called for in judgment & order of learned Single Judge. The present Letters Patent Appeal is summarily dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI