SCA/1226120/2001 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12261 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER - Petitioner Versus AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LABOUR ASSOCIATION - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MR HS MUNSHAW for Petitioner : MR NIKHIL D JOSHI for Respondent: ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 06/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsels of the parties. 1. The petitioner Superintending Engineer, Gandhinagar Irrigation Circle (Panchayat) has approached this Court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad on 1/3/2001 SCA/1226120/2001 2/5 JUDGMENT in Reference (ITN) No. 85 of 1999 (Old No. 319/1996) as contrary to the material on record. The Industrial Tribunal directed to extend benefit admissible to work-charge employees, to the present respondent workmen w.e.f. 1/1/2001. 2. This Court (Coram: M.S. Shah, J) on 27/8/2002 issued rule and granted interim relief recording therein that the members of the respondent association are given the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, particularly para-3 thereof and members of the respondent association are also being paid the salary and other monetary benefits as per the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission Report. The interim relief in para no. 8(C) was granted on a condition that the petitioner continues to pay the members of the respondent association benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and the pay scales and other benefits as per 5th Pay Commission Report as stated in para-(vii) of the petition. 3. Shri Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the award is suffering from basic infirmity as the two classes of workmen have been equated though the same was not warranted. In fact the daily wagers have been gradually given certain benefits so as to alleviate the menace of discrimination in payment of wages. One such attempt successfully made by the State was in form of Resolution dated 17/10/1988 where under the scheme was evolved to extend benefit of employment to this daily wagers so as to assuage the feeling of being discriminated against by equating them so far as the payment of wages etc. are concerned. It is an admitted position that the present members of the respondent association have been given the SCA/1226120/2001 3/5 JUDGMENT benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 as it is recorded herein above. Therefore the Industrial Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration this aspect and ought not to have decided that they should be given the benefit available to work charge employee from 1/1/2001. The award therefore is not in consonance with the provision of law, nor is it based upon the material on record and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent workmen association contended that the Industrial Tribunal has recorded in clear terms that there is no material difference between the working hours and nature of duty between the daily wagers like present members of respondent association as well as those work-charge who have been given benefits, which are not admissible to members of the present respondent association and its members. The findings of the Industrial Tribunal therefore can not be said to be perverse so as to call for any interference from this Court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal with regard to similarity in nature of work, discharge of duties, should be held sufficient to dismiss the petition as the petitioner did not produce any material indicating that the members of the respondent association were not similarly situated qua the work-charge employee. He submitted that, therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused the papers of the petition and the annexure therewith. Shri Munshaw has extensively taken this Court through the documents at Annexure-C on page-40 i.e. Government Resolution of the year 1983 and the contentions before the SCA/1226120/2001 4/5 JUDGMENT Industrial Tribunal with regard to the handicaps on the part of the members of the respondent association in not being covered by the same, though that very document was not on the record of the Industrial Tribunal. But a specific pleading was raised that the workmen were not entitled to receive the benefit of work-charge establishment as they did not have the eligibility prescribed in the Government Resolution. During the course of submission learned counsel for the respondent workmen also could not point out as to how they would be governed by this resolution. In fact to a pointed query as to whether the workmen are eligible as per this Government Resolution for benefit, the answer was in negative. Assuming for the sake of examining the plea with regard to non-availability of the Government Resolution with the Industrial Tribunal, then also it deserves to be noted that, the Industrial Tribunal has extensively gone into the matter so far as the benefit under Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 is concerned. Resolution dated 17/10/1988 itself takes care of entire scenario which go to show that the scheme so far evolved is absolutely rationale, proper and if the same benefits are granted then the workmen could not make out a case for having the same from the earlier date as & when they are eligible for this benefit they were granted. The counsel for the respondent workmen also did not point out that under what circumstances they were entitled to be on work-charge establishment which otherwise is ordered to be granted to them from the year 2001. In absence of any specific case for being treated on work-charge establishment the Industrial Tribunal's findings would not sustain the scrutiny, therefore the same does not deserve to be upheld. As against this the very interim order passed by this Court wherein it has been recorded that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 particularly mentioned in para-3 SCA/1226120/2001 5/5 JUDGMENT is already extended to the respondent workmen and that in similar situation the workmen in Special Civil Application No. 4726 of 2004 with Special Civil Application No. 12247 of 2004 were not granted the benefit. 6. This Court, in view of above, is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified that, this Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent workmen are continuing to get benefits of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and other incidental benefits attached thereto. With this observation the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to cost. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn