Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1332 (GUJ)

Surat Labour Union v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-31

K.M.THAKER

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. Heard Mr. Koshti, learned advocate for the petitioner union, Mr. Goutam, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1 - State, and Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Mr. Koshti, learned advocate for the petitioner union submitted that the members of the petitioner union who have been working as daily wagers have taken out present petition to seek benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 which is already granted to other similarly placed persons in the same department. 3. Learned AGP and Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate, for the State and Panchayat jointly submitted that the benefit available in accordance with GR dated 17.10.1988 have already been extended to the petitioners. 4. In this context, learned advocate for the respondent Panchayat relied on the details mentioned in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 26.4.2005, which read thus:— “3. I say and submit that before the resolution dtd. 17/10/1988 came into existence, the daily wages were getting only daily wage, but that were not entitled to get other benefits. Therefore, the government denied policy to give the benefits to skilled and unskilled daily wagers who completed 5 years, 10 years services with the management. Actually, the resolution is passed by the State, but all the panchayats have adopted the said policy. So that the daily wagers can be given the said benefits. As per said resolution, the panchayat is giving all the benefits which are mentioned therein. The benefits of pension and gratuity are being given to them. Not only that 10% of their basic pay P.F amount is also deducted. Benefits of public holidays and holiday of Sunday is given to them. But so far as benefit of LTC/TA/Group insurance, Medical allowances are not being given, because for that they are not entitled for is, as it is not mentioned in the policy-resolution. 4. I say and submit that the petitioners - 39 workers are daily wagers, they are not work-charged employees. They have mixed up this two things. It is denied that 3 9 workmen can be given orders as per circular dtd. 17/10/88. The said circular is passed to give benefits to only daily wagers. On one hand the petitioners want to get the benefits of the resolution dtd. 17/10/1988 and on other hand demanding status of work-charged employees. It is not possible. It is denied that 3 9 workmen can be given orders as per circular dtd. 17/10/88. The said circular is passed to give benefits to only daily wagers. On one hand the petitioners want to get the benefits of the resolution dtd. 17/10/1988 and on other hand demanding status of work-charged employees. It is not possible. Daily wagers, work charge employees, Temporary seneants and permanent seneants all are of different categories work-charged employee is given appointment only for particular work. Only. Hence, as per circular dtd. 17/10/1988 the petitioners cannot be given appointment of workcharge. 5. I say and submit that the resolution dtd. 17/10/1988 passed for skilled and unskilled labourers are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-I Collectively. It is submitted that the Government has specifically instructed to all head of the Departments that whatever benefits mentioned in G.R dtd. 17/10/1988, only that should be given no more benefits can be given to them. …” 5. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that this Court specifically asked learned advocate for the respondent to clarify and explain the anomaly or the discrepancy or the contradiction in the statement in paragraph No. 4, which reads thus “It is denied that 39 workmen can be given orders as per circular dtd. 17/10/88.” vis-a-vis the details mentioned in paragraph No.3 wherein it is averred and stated that “Actually, the resolution is passed by the State, but all the panchayats have adopted the said policy. So that the daily wagers can be given the said benefits. As per the said resolution the panchayat is giving all the benefits which are mentioned therein. The benefits of pension and gratuity are being given to them.” and in reply the learned advocate for the respondent Panchayat again asserted and specifically mentioned that the Panchayat has granted all benefits to the concerned persons, which are available in accordance with GR dated 17.10.1988 and that therefore, the petition does not survive. 6. The names of 39 persons who are concerned in the petition are mentioned in the list at Annexure-A to the petition. 7. 6. The names of 39 persons who are concerned in the petition are mentioned in the list at Annexure-A to the petition. 7. Thus, according to the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit dated 26.4.2005 and the assertions made by learned advocate for the respondent Panchayat today at the time of hearing (in response to the query by the Court), it has emerged that the respondent panchayat has granted the benefits under GR dated 17.10.1988 to the 39 petitioners and that therefore, the demand raised by them stands satisfied. 8. Under the circumstances, any other or separate order for granting such benefits to the petitioners is not required to be passed. 9. Mr. Koshti, learned advocate for the petitioner union, made grievance that some of the persons are not getting certain benefits in accordance with said GR and some of the petitioners, who have retired, are according to his information, not paid retiral dues in accordance with the GR and/or applicable policy. 10. If there are such individual cases of any employees, then, such persons/employees will have to initiate appropriate proceedings in respect of their individual grievance to claim any particular benefit (which according to his claim is not paid/despite entitlement in accordance with GR dated 17.10.1988), however, in this common and general petition claiming benefits in accordance with GR dated 17.10.1988 such individual grievance and/or claim for any one or more benefit under said GR cannot be examined or considered. 10.1 Therefore, it is clarified that if and when such employee submits any application for such claim then, concerned authority will consider such claim in accordance with the GR dated 17.10.1988 and in light of the principle clarified by the Court in the decision in case of State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ]. 10.2 It is further clarified that disposal of this petition in light of the statement made in affidavit dated 26.4.2005 will not stand in the way of any person concerned in this petition, from raising claim for any benefit available under GR dated 17.10.1988 if such benefit has not been paid to him during tenure of his service (i.e. before retirement from service) or in case of employee who is still in service, but is denied the benefit available under GR dated 17.10.1988 11. With aforesaid observation and clarification, present petition stands disposed of. With aforesaid observation and clarification, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.