Gujarat High Court: In a writ petition filed by the workmen of the Forests and Environment Department, concerning the entitlement of these workers to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 (‘Resolution’), which aimed to regularize the services and improve the conditions of daily-wage workers, Hemant M. Prachchhak, J., held that the termination of services of the petitioners by the respondents was illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Background
The matter revolves around the employment rights of daily-wage workers in the Forest and Environment Department of Gujarat. The primary issue concerns the entitlement of these workers to the benefits of the Resolution dated 17-10-1988, which aimed to regularize the services and improve the conditions of daily-wage workers.
The petitioners were employed on a daily wage basis in the Nursery of the Forests and Environment Department. Their appointments occurred between 01-01-2006, and 01-08-2007. Despite having served for over seven years, the petitioners received only the minimum wages stipulated under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and no additional benefits were provided. They were not given a regular pay scale or any types of leave such as casual, earned, or medical leave. Additionally, upon reaching retirement age, they were not eligible for any retirement benefits.
In 2013, the Supreme Court directed the State, in State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union, (2013) 12 SCC 417, to extend the benefits of the Resolution to all daily-wage workers in the Forests and Environment Department who had served for more than five years. Following this decision, the Court directed the respondent authorities to assess each petitioner’s case individually and extend the benefits of the resolution if they were found eligible. Consequently, petitioners, along with others, became entitled to the scheme’s benefits.
However, the respondent State did not comply with this order and subsequently, on 01-10-2015, the services of petitioners were terminated.
As a result, the petitioners have filed the present petition to challenge the oral termination of their services on 01-10-2015, and to contest respondents’ decision to reject their claim for the benefits of the Resolution.
Decision and Analysis
The Court noted that the respondent authorities did not issue any notice to the petitioners before terminating their services. The Court further noted that the services of the petitioners were terminated on purpose so as to deprive them of all the benefits under the said Resolution, thereby rendering such termination of service as illegal. The Court meticulously reviewed the Resolution dated 17-10-1988, which was designed to regularize the services of daily-wage workers who had completed five years of continuous service. The Court noted that the resolution’s intention was to improve the employment conditions and provide job security to long-serving daily-wage workers.
The Court found that many workers who met the eligibility criteria as defined in the resolution were unjustly denied its benefits. The Court criticized the State for its inconsistent application of the resolution, as the evidence demonstrated that the benefits were not uniformly extended to all eligible workers.
The Court further quashed and set aside the oral order of termination of the passed by the State against the petitioners.
Based on the findings, the Court issued the following orders:
-
The Court ordered the reinstatement of all petitioners who were wrongfully terminated. It emphasized that their service should be considered continuous for all practical purposes, including the calculation of seniority and other benefits.
-
The Court directed the State to extend the benefits of the Resolution dated17-10-1988, to all eligible daily-wage workers. This included regular pay scales, allowances, and other benefits as outlined in the resolution.
-
The Court ordered the payment of back wages to the wrongfully terminated workers. It considered factors such as interim employment and the financial condition of the State while determining the quantum of back wages.
The Court also mandated the establishment of a mechanism to ensure compliance with its orders, including periodic reporting to the Court on the implementation status.
[PWD v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 2413, Decided on: 18-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, Advocate Ninad P Shah, Advocate Aditi S Raol, Advocate Vidhi J Bhatt
For the State: AGP Jay Trivedi
