Gujarat High Court
Taluka Development Officer vs Mansukhlal Bhagvanji Umraniya on 25 September, 2023
Bench: Devan M. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1084/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1084 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11950 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1084 of 2022
==========================================================
TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
MANSUKHLAL BHAGVANJI UMRANIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 25/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for the appellants and
learned advocate Ms. Khushbu Chhaya for the respondent workman.
2. The respondent workman, who was rojamdar clerk serving since
19.9.1979 under the respondent, when invoked jurisdiction of the Labour
Court, Rajkot, by filling Reference (LCD) No. 3 of 2009 seeking benefits
of the State Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of long
services rendered by him, could succeed by earning judgment and award
dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Labour Court.
2.1 By the said judgment and award, the Labour Court held that the
workman was entitled to receive the benefits flowing from the Resolution
dated 17.10.1988. It was directed to treat the services of the workman as
continuous with permanency benefit upon completion of 10 years on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1084/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
1.10.1989 and to fix the pay on that basis in view of the provisions of the
Resolution. The benefits arising thereby including the arrears were
directed to be paid.
3. The appellant-Taluka Panchayat sought to set aside the said
judgment and award of the Labour Court by filling Special Civil
Application. Learned single Judge by judgement and order dated
11.8.2021 dismissed the petition.
3.1 It is the said judgment and order dated 11.8.2016 is called in
question by the appellant Taluka Development Officer and others by
filling the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent.
3.2 The date of entry in service of the workman was 1.10.1979, which
is not in dispute. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner has put in
total 33 years of service. It is to be noticed, as recorded by learned single
Judge and could not disputed by the appellant, that the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, also recognised long
33 years of service of the workman to accept his claim for gratuity as per
order dated 10.09.2013.
3.3 Reckoned from the date of joining, the workman completed 10
years of service on 1.10.1989. On that premise, he was held entitled to be
given the benefit of permanency in accordance with the Resolution dated
17.10.1988. The Resolution dated 17.10.1988 contemplates giving of
service benefits including regular pay scale and permanency benefits on
the basis of the total length of continuous service rendered by the daily
rated employee.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1084/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
3.4 It is in the context and background of all the aforesaid facts that the
benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 became available to the
workman.
4. What was sought to be submitted by learned advocate Mr. H. S.
Munshaw for the appellant was that the respondent employee approached
the Labour Court on the eve of his retirement. The conduct on the part of
the workman was termed as a belated approach to seek the relief, to
further submit by learned advocate that in view of the delay on the part of
the employee, he could not have been given the benefits for the entire
period and that the benefits may be granted by providing a reasonable cut
off date.
4.1 It appears that the above aspect was the only submission before
learned single Judge, which was dealt with by learned single Judge with
the following reasoning, extracting from the impugned order,
"6. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned advocate, Mr
Munshaw for granting of notional benefits on a particular date, the same
required to be rejected as the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Forest Employees Union and other reported in 2019 3 scale
642, while interpreting judgment rendered between same parties
reported in 2013 12 SCC 147 has held that all daily-wagers, who have
completed 240 days in first year and thereafter and are continuous
service more than 5, 10 and 15 years are entitled to benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and accordingly, their pay
fixation and retiral benefits such as increment, dearness allowances are
required to be paid. Both judgments rendered by the Supreme Court do
not suggest any cut of date and grant of notional benefits and hence, it is
legally impermissible for the petitioners to introduce cut or grant of
notional benefits to a daily-wagers."
5. While this court endorses to the above reasoning to be entirely in
agreement therewith, the submission on part of the appellant about the
delay in seeking the benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1084/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
no legs to stand inasmuch as, the respondent daily rated employee would
become automatically entitled to the benefits under the Resolution dated
17.10.1988 once he completes the requisite number of years of service
and satisfies the service length criteria to be eligible to the benefits
flowing from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
5.1 The Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is a policy decision to be applied
by the authorities in respect of all workmen completing the number of
years to be eligible. Applying the policy is the responsibility of the
authorities. When the respondents themselves have introduced the
policy, a positive act is always expected from the authorities to
implement the Resolution to give benefits thereunder to the intended
eligible daily rated employee.
5.2 The benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 given to the
respondent workman as per the judgment and award of the Labour Court
and confirmed by learned single Judge, are based on the legitimate rights
of the workman who is covered under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
6. No error could be booked in the impugned judgment and order of
learned single Judge. The challenge thereof in the Letters Patent Appeal
fails.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
Civil Application stands disposed of in view of dismissal of the
main Appeal.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
