Page 1

1

REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.  5321-5322                     OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) 13619-13620 OF 2012)

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.     … APPELLANTS

VERUS

PWD EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. ETC.       … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Gujarat  

and others against a common judgment dated 28th February, 2012 passed by the  

Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby Letters Patent  

Appeal No. 1754 of 2011 in Misc. Civil Application No.17/2011 preferred by the  

State  of  Gujarat  and  its  officials  has  been  dismissed  and  the  order  dated  25 th  

August,  2011  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  has  been  affirmed  giving  

direction  to  the  appellant-State  and  its  officials  to  regularize  the  services  of  

respondents-workmen.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

The Gujarat State Employees Union, Gujarat State Public Works Department  

Employees Union, Labour Union and other Unions made a representation to the

Page 2

2

State Government for regularization of daily wage workers, working since long.  

On their demand, the  State Government constituted a Committee vide Resolution  

dated 24th March, 1988 under the Chairmanship of Minister of Road and Building  

Department to make proper recommendations after studying the demands, issues  

and questions of the Labour Unions. After thoroughly studying the wages of daily  

wage  workers,  work  related  services  &  facilities  provided  to  the  daily  wage  

workers who were engaged in the building maintenance and repairing work in  

different departments of the State such as Road and Building Department, Water  

Resources  Department,  Forest  Department,  Agriculture  Department  etc.  the  

Committee  made  recommendations  favouring  the  regularization.  The  State  

Government  on  considering  the  recommendations  submitted  by  the  Committee  

decided to accept all the said recommendations and resolved as follows:

“RESOLUTION

    The Government has taken into  consideration the recommendations  submitted by committee and so, it is  decided to accept all recommendations of  the Committee.   Accordingly,   it is  resolved to provide following wages and  services to daily wagers and semi skilled  workers working in different departments  of the State.

1.It is decided to pay daily wages as per  the prevailing Daily Wages Rules to daily  wagers and semi skilled workers who has  less than five years service   as on  1.10.1988.  If there is presence of more  than 240 days in first year, he is

Page 3

3

eligible for paid Sunday, medical  allowance and national festival holidays.

(2)As per provisions of Section 25B of  the Industrial disputes act, daily wagers  and semi skilled workers who has service  of more  than five years but less than 10  years as on 1.10.1988, will get Rs.750/­  as fixed monthly salary alongwith  dearness allowance as per prevailing  standard, for his working days.  Moreover, he/she will get two optional  leave in addition to 14 misc. leave,  Sunday leave and national festival  holidays.   He/She will be eligible for  getting medical allowance and deduction  of provident fund.

(3)   As per provisions of Section 25B of  the Industrial disputes act, daily wagers  and semi skilled workers who has service  of more  than ten years but less than 15  years as on 1.10.1988, will get minimum  pay scale at par with skilled work along  with dearness allowance as per prevailing  standard, for his working days.  Moreover, he/she will get two optional  leave in addition to 14 misc. leave,  Sunday leave and national festival  holidays.   He/She will be eligible for  getting medical allowance and deduction  of provident fund.

(4) As per provisions of Section 25B of  the Industrial Disputes Act,   daily  wagers and semi skilled workers who has  service of more than fifteen years as on  1.10.1988 will be considered as permanent  worker and such semi skilled workers will  get current pay scale of skilled worker  along with dearness allowance, local city  allowance and house rent allowance.  They will get benefit as per the  prevailing rules of gratuity,   retired  salary, general provident fund.

Page 4

4

Moreover they will get two optional leave  in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days  earned leave, 20 days half pay leave,  Sunday leave & national festival  holidays. The retirement age of such semi  skilled workers will be 60 years and  their services will be rendered for  pensionable period.  As per provisions of  Section 25B of the   Industrial Disputes  Act, daily wagers and semi skilled  workers who have completed more than  fifteen years of their service will get  one increment,   two increment for 20  years service and three increments for 25  years in the current pay scale of skilled  worker and their salary will be fixed  accordingly on 1.10.1998.”

The aforesaid Resolution was issued and published with the consent of the  

Finance  Department  dated  14th October,  1988  and  General  Administrative  

Department dated 17th October, 1988.

3. In spite of the Resolution of the State Government dated 17th October, 1988  

the benefit was not provided to the daily wage workers of the Forest Department of  

the  State.   Aggrieved by the  same,  some of  the  daily  wage workers  of  Forest  

Department filed a Special  Civil  Application No.3500 of 1992 before the High  

Court of Gujarat. The learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 21st March, 1997  

relying on a common judgment dated 4th March, 1996, passed by the same Court in  

a group of similar cases, held that Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable  

to the employees of the Forest Department as well.  

4. Against the aforesaid decision an LPA No.1642 of 1999 was filed by the

Page 5

5

State Government which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High  

Court by its order dated 29th April, 2003. On being aggrieved by the same, the State  

Government  moved  before  this  Court  by  filing  SLP(C)….of  2004  (CC  

No.10763/2004) which also got dismissed by the order dated 29th November, 2004.  

Thereby the finding that the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable to  

the daily wage workers of the Forest Department reached finality. In another case  

when some of the daily wage workers of  Forest  Department moved before the  

High Court of Gujarat, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. A three-Judge  

Bench  by  its  judgment  in  Gujarat  Forest  Producers,  Gatherers  and  Forest   

Workers Union vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 2 GLH 302: (2004) 2 GLR 568, held  

that the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable only to the  

daily wage workers of  the Forest  and Environment Department engaged in the  

work of maintenance and repairing of constructions in that Department, and not to  

the daily wage workers engaged in other type of work in that Department.

5. In the meantime, the State Government took up the matter in its Forest and  

Environment Department. Referring to the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 it  

was  observed  that  the  said  resolution  was  passed  by  accepting  the  

recommendations of the Committee appointed for studying wages, service oriented  

and other facilities giving to the daily wagers, labourers and workers employed for  

preservation and repairing constructions in various departments of the State viz.,  

Roads &  Building Department, Water Resources Department, Forest Department,

Page 6

6

Agricultural  Department,  Narmada  Development  Department,  Water  Supply  

Department and Panchayat & Rural Home Development and other departments,  

and it has been decided to give wages and service oriented facilities to such daily  

wagers, labourers and workers vide Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, of the  

Roads  and  Building  Department  and  the  then  ancillary  resolutions.   With  the  

aforesaid observation, the following decision was taken by the Resolution dated  

22nd December, 1999:

“RESOLUTOIN

In connection with aforesaid preface  regarding daily­wagers working in the  Forest Department under the control of  the Forest & Environment Department and  resolution of Hon’ble Shri Daulatbhai  Parmar Committee, it is resolved that,

1. On the basis of report of Hon’ble  Shri Daulatbhai Parmar Committee,  the Resolution dated 17/10/1988 of  the Roads & Building Department,  which is passed regarding wages,  services & other facilities to be  applied to the daily­wagers,  labourers and workers of Forest  Department under the control of  Forest & Environment Department,  cannot be applied in view of work of  daily­wagers of the Forest  Department and in view of nature of  work and financial arrangement and  their temporary/seasonal & limited  work, because on applying the said  resolution, after completion of  work, such daily­wagers cannot be  employed continuously for long time

Page 7

7

where there is no work. But they are  supposed to be removed. In view of  the said circumstances, on the basis  of report of Hon’ble Shri Daulatbhai  Parmar Committee, there is no  intention of applying Resolution  dated 17/10/1998 of the Roads &  Building Department to the daily­ wagers of the Forest Department of  the State Government.

2. In the Notification issued from time  to time regarding minimum wages  also, minimum wages for the daily­ wagers of the Forest Department is  indicated separately and in view of  the burden of their work, in  comparison with daily­wagers of  construction wages is indicated at  less rate, which falls under heading  of reasonable classification,  therefore, the Resolution dated  17/10/1988 of the Roads & Building,  Department cannot be applied for the  said reasons.

3. These orders have been passed in  view of opinion/consent, vide entry  dated 05/11/1999 of the Legal  Department, entry dated 18/11/1999  of the Finance Department and entry  dated 25/11/1999 of the Roads &  Building Department.”

On bare perusal of the Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999, we find that  

by such Resolution the State Government (Forest and Environment Department)  

wrongly  interpreted  the  Resolution  dated  17th October,  1988  that  the  said  

Resolution passed on the opinion of the Legal Department runs contrary to the  

Resolution  of the State dated 17th October, 1988, and decision of the High Court of

Page 8

8

Gujarat  dated 21st March,  1997 in  Special  Civil  Application  No.3500 of  1992,  

which was upheld by the Division Bench vide letter dated 29th April, 2003 and  

against which the SLP was dismissed by this Court on 29th November, 2004.

6. The present case pertains to daily wage workers of the Forest Department,  

who have been in service for about 5-30 years as on 29th October, 2010, of more  

than 240 days for large number of years, doing full-time work of a perennial nature  

as stated by the High Court of Gujarat in its judgment dated 29th October, 2010.  In  

the said judgment,  the High Court  directed the authority to consider the above  

stated factors while deciding the individual cases for regularization.

7. The Unions  of  the  employees  and individual  workmen employed by the  

Forest  Department  approached  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  in  Special  Civil  

Application No.6913 of 2006, inter alia, seeking directions to the State authorities  

for framing of a scheme for the purpose of giving permanent or quasi permanent  

status to the daily wagers of Forest Department in the light of their long services in  

the Forest Department on daily wage basis. By order dated 12th October, 2006, the  

High Court  disposed of  the aforesaid  SCA permitting  the  petitioner  Union (1st  

respondent  in  present  matter)  to  make  a  detailed  representation  to  the  State  

authorities and directing the State authorities to consider the representation within  

a specified period.  Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court the Union (1st  

respondent herein) made a representation dated 30th October, 2006 to the Secretary,  

Forest  and  Environment  Department,  the  Secretary,  Finance  Department,  the

Page 9

9

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests. After  

more  than  a  year,  the  Deputy  Conservator  of  Forests,  Rajpipla  West  Division  

passed order  dated  17th November,  2007 rejecting  the  representation  dated  30th  

October, 2006 with respect to 12 daily wagers of the Rajpipla West Division.

8. Being  aggrieved,  the  PWD  Employees  (1st respondent  herein)  filed  a  

Miscellaneous  Civil  Application  No.119  of  2008  in  SCA  No.6913  of  2006  

challenging the rejection order dated 17th November, 2007. By an order dated 31st  

January,  2008,  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  directed  the  Secretary,  Forest  and  

Environment  Department  to  decide  the  representation  filed  by  the  PWD  

Employees Union.

9. The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department rejected the application  

by his order dated 3rd May, 2008 which was a verbatim reproduction of the order  

dated 17th November,  2007 passed by the Deputy Conservator  of Forests,  West  

Division.

10. It is pertinent to mention that by order dated 3rd May, 2008 the Secretary,  

Forest and Environment Department, inter alia, admits that “the initial entry in the  

sense  of  engagement  on  daily  wages  does  not  suffer  from  any  illegality  or  

irregularity and was in consonance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act  

and continues to be so".  

However,  the  representation  was  rejected,  on  the  ground  that  “the  daily  

wagers  have  not  worked  on  any  duly  sanctioned  posts  which  were  otherwise

Page 10

10

required  to  be  filled  up  in  a  regular  manner  and  further  that  no  such  duly  

sanctioned posts exist. Therefore, the Union's claim of one time regularization, the  

same being on non-existent posts, is not maintainable and is consequently denied".  

11.  After the rejection of the representation, the respondents-Employees Union  

had to again move before the High Court in SCA No.8647 of 2008 challenging the  

order  of  rejection dated 3rd May,  2008.   On hearing the parties  and perusal  of  

record, the learned Single Judge of the High Court by its order and judgment dated  

29th October, 2010 disposed of the representation recording the following facts:

(i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, State of   

Gujarat has himself come to the conclusion vide order dated 3rd May,   

2008 that  initial  entry  of  the  daily  wagers  does  not  suffer  from any   

illegality or irregularity  but is in consonance with the provisions of   

Minimum  Wages  Act.  Therefore,  the  question  of  regularization  by   

removing the procedural defects does not arise.

(ii) Looking to the nature of work described in the order dated 3rd  

May, 2008, the daily wagers are engaged in the work which is perennial   

in nature.  

(iii) The  daily  wagers  of  other  Government  Departments  like   

Roads  &  Buildings  Department,  Narmada  Water  Resources,  Water   

Supply  and  Kalpasar  Department,  etc.  have  been  made  permanent   

pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

(iv) The  Department  of  Agriculture  and  Cooperation  has  also   

issued analogous resolution dated 20th December, 2005 to regularize the   

services of daily wagers of the Fisheries Department.

(v) The Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra had also   

issued  a  scheme  in  the  year  1996  quite  similar  to  the  Government  

Page 11

11

Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 in respect to the daily wagers in   

their Forest Department.  

(vi) In  compliance  of  award  passed  by  the  Labour  Court  in   

Reference  (IT)  No.386/88,  a  number  of  daily  wagers  of  the  Forest   

Department  who  have  completed  5  years  900  days  were  absorbed   

against 22 supernumerary posts created.

Learned Single Judge finally passed the following  

order:

“7. In the interest of justice, the following directions are   issued which will meet with the ends of justice:

1. The impugned order dated 3.05.2008 passed by   the  Secretary,  Forest  &  Environment   Department,  State  of  Gujarat  is  quashed and   set aside.

2. The  Secretary,  Forest  &  Environment   Department,  State  of  Gujarat,  is  directed  to   consider  the  case  of  the  petitioners  for   regularization/conferring  permanent  status,   afresh in  light  of  the  facts  of  each individual   case  keeping  in  mind  the  observations  made   hereinabove and also to consider the scope of   framing a scheme for giving quasi  permanent   status  to  the  petitioners-daily  wagers  at  par   with  the  scheme  for  daily  wagers  in  other   Government  Departments  like  Roads  &  Buildings  Department,  Narmada  Water   Resources,  Water  Supply  and  Kalpasar   Department,  etc.,  contained  in  Government   Resolution  dated  17.10.1988.  In  case,  the   authority  is  of  the  view  that  the  benefits  as   prayed for cannot be granted then a reasoned   order be passed supported by detailed reasons.

3 The aforesaid exercise be undertaken within a   period of two months from today.

Page 12

12

4. Liberty  to  revive  the  petitions  in  case  of   difficulty by filing required application/s.”  

Against the judgment dated 29th October, 2010 no appeal was preferred by  

the State Government or by any person and, thereby, the said judgment reached  

finality.  

12. The  1st  respondent-  Employees  Union,  thereafter  requested  the  Chief  

Secretary, Forest & Environment Department by letter dated 20th November, 2010  

to consider the issue and pass an appropriate resolution in consultation with the  

Union.  However,  no action has  been taken.  Hence,  the respondent  Union filed  

Misc. Civil Application No.17/2011 in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters  

before the High Court.

13.  When  the  matter  was  pending,  the  Principal  Secretary,  Forest  &  

Environment Department by order dated 21st April, 2011 rejected the request of  

regularization taking a stand that  the job carried out  by the respondents herein  

cannot be said to be perennial in nature. Before the High Court, Conservator of  

Forests filed affidavit giving details of number of daily wagers whose cases were  

examined and, inter alia,  stating that by orders dated 21.4.2011 total 745 cases  

were  considered  and  proposal  to  grant  benefit  has  not  found  favour.  One  

additional-affidavit was filed by the respondent-Union showing therein  the fact  

that the State Government already regularized the services of 21 daily wagers of  

the Forest Department by creating supernumerary posts pursuant to the High Court  

of Gujarat order dated 21st March, 1997 passed in SCA No.3500 of 1992. There

Page 13

13

respondent-Union also filed a draft Amendment in Misc. Civil Application No.17  

of  2011 with additional  prayer to quash the order of  rejection dated 21st April,  

2011.

14. Learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  by  order  dated  25 th  

August,  2011 allowed the Misc.C.A No.17 of  2011, inter  alia,  holding that  the  

judgment dated 29th October, 2010 could not have been construed to mean to pass a  

reasoned order rejecting the representation of the respondents herein. An order was  

passed directing the State to frame a scheme for giving quasi-permanent status to  

the respondents herein in compliance with the judgment dated 29th October, 2010.  

Learned Single Judge also recorded the offer made on behalf of the respondents  

that they were willing to waive the financial benefits for the past period i.e. upto  

29th October, 2010, subject to the fact that period of service rendered by them be  

counted notionally for other purposes.  

15. The  aforesaid  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  affirmed  by  the  

Division Bench by the impugned common judgment dated 28th February, 2012.  

Hence, the present SLPs are preferred by the State.   

16. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended as follows:

(i) The  High  Court   

under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct absorption,   

regularization or permanency of the daily wage workers unless  

Page 14

14

the recruitment itself was made in a regular manner in terms of   

the constitutional scheme.

(ii)  A large scale regularization of daily wage workers will   

increase the financial burden on the State.  

(iii) The respondents or its member cannot base their claim  

under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution to seek permanence or   

quasi permanence in service .  

(iv) Direction  given  by  the  High  Court  is  against  the   

principle laid down by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka   

and Others vs. UmaDevi(3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and A.  

Umarani v. Registrar Co-operative Societies and Others, (2004) 7   

SCC 112.

(v) Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 applies only to the   

daily wage workers who were engaged in building maintenance   

and repairing work as held by Full Bench of Gujarat High Court   

in  Gujarat  Forest  Producers,  Gatherers  and  Forest  Workers   

Union  vs.  State  of  Gujarat  (supra).   The  respondents  or  its   

members  are  not  entitled  to  claim  any  benefit  under  the  said   

scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.  

17. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the judgment  

dated 29th October, 2010 passed in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters is

Page 15

15

binding between the parties i.e. the appellants and the respondents as it was not  

challenged by the appellants or any other person, on the contrary the appellants  

claimed to have complied with the judgment aforesaid.  Learned counsel for the  

respondents contended as follows:

(i)  The scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October, 1988  

is  equally  applicable  to  the  daily  wage  workers  of  the  Forest   

Department. It does not distinguish the employees on the basis of   

nature of job performed by one or the other daily wage workers.  

(ii)  The  Resolution  dated  22nd December,  1999  issued  by  the   

Forest  & Environment Department,  Government of Gujarat was   

not brought on record before the High Court.  It is for the first time   

without any leave from this Court such fact has been brought on   

record by filing additional documents.  The Full Bench judgment   

in  Gujarat  Forest  Producers,  Gatherers  and  Forest  Workers   

Union vs. State of Gujarat (supra) was also not placed before the   

High Court, therefore, the appellants cannot derive any advantage   

of the same.  

(iii)  The Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999 issued from Forest   

& Environment Department is contrary to the scheme contained in   

Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the State of Gujarat.

Page 16

16

(iv) The Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Forest   

Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers Union(supra) wrongly  

interpreted the scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October,   

1988. The same is not binding in case of the respondents who were   

not parties to the said case.

18. The main questions which arise for our consideration in these appeals are:

(1) Whether  the  daily  wage  workers  of  Forest  and   

Environment Department working for 5 to 30 years for works   

other than building and maintenance and repairing work are   

entitled  to  derive  benefits  of  the  scheme  contained  in  the   

Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the State from  

Road and Building Department;  

(2) If  so,  whether  the  members  of  the  respondent-

employees Union working on daily wages for more than 5 to 30   

years in the Forest and Environment Department of the State   

will be entitled for similar benefits of the scheme contained in   

the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

19. From  a  bare  reading  of  the  Resolution  dated  17th October,  1988,  the  

following facts emerge:  

(a) Labour and other Unions made representation to the   

Government making demands and issues relating to daily wage   

workers of different departments of the Government.

(b) The State Government constituted a committee under   

the Chairmanship, Minister of Road and Building Department.

(c) The Committee was constituted for studying

Page 17

17

(i)  the wages of daily wage workers;and

(ii)  work related services and facilities provided to the   

daily  wage  workers  who  are  engaged  in  the  building   

maintenance and repairing work in different departments   

of the State.  

(d)    The recommendations of  the Committee were accepted   

and accordingly the State Government resolved to provide the   

benefits of the scheme contained in the Resolution 17th October,   

1988.

20. The daily wage workers who were engaged in building maintenance and  

repairing work in different departments were already entitled for their work related  

facilities.  Therefore,  what  we  find  is  that  the  Committee  has  not  limited  the  

recommendation to the daily wage workers working in building maintenance and  

repairing work in different departments of the State.  The State Government vide  

its Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 has not limited it to the daily wage workers  

working in building maintenance and repairing work.  What we find is that the  

Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable to all the daily wage workers  

working in different departments of the State including Forest and Environment  

Department performing any nature of job including the work other than building  

maintenance and repairing work.   The decision of the Full Bench of Gujarat High  

Court in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers Union(supra   

and the subsequent Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999 issued from Forest and

Page 18

18

Environment Department of the State, in our opinion are not sustainable, as the  

intent of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 was not properly explained therein  

and,  therefore,  the  aforesaid  decision  of  Full  Bench and  Resolution  dated  22nd  

December, 1999 cannot be made applicable to the daily wage workers of the Forest  

and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat.   

21. In view of  the aforesaid  observation,  we find that  the  full  Bench of  the  

Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers   

Union(supra) proceeded on erroneous premises to hold that the Resolution dated  

17th October,  1988  is  applicable  only  to  the  daily  wage  workers  of  Forest  

Department engaged in building maintenance and repairing work. The conclusions  

in the said judgment are not sustainable otherwise also. We have already noticed  

that the Resolution of the State Government dated 17th October, 1988 is not limited  

to any particular department, it applies to all the departments including Road and  

Building, Forest and Environment Department, Water Resources Department, etc.  

We have also noticed that  the Committee headed by the Minister  of  Road and  

Building  Department  looked  into  the  wages  of  daily  wage  workers  and  work  

related  facilities  provided  to  the  daily  wage  workers  engaged  in  building  

maintenance and repairing work in different departments, only for the purpose of  

its  recommendations.  The  Committee  has  not  limited  the  recommendations  

amongst the daily wage workers engaged in building maintenance and repairing  

work in different departments by its aforesaid Resolution.  It is applicable to all

Page 19

19

daily wage workers including semi-skilled workers performing any nature of job,  

working in different departments of the State including the daily wage workers of  

the  Forest  Department  performing  work  other  than  building  maintenance  and  

repairing work.  

22. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division  

Bench arise out of the final order and judgment dated 29th October, 2010 passed in  

SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters.  The said order has reached finality in  

absence  of  any  challenge  before  the  higher  Court  and  hence  became  binding  

between  the  parties  i.e.  the  appellant-State  of  Gujarat  and  the  respondents-

Employees  Union.  Therefore,  none  of  the  parties  including  appellants-State  of  

Gujarat can rely on Full Bench decision in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers   

and Forest Workers Union(supra) to scuttle the decision and direction given by  

the Gujarat High Court in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters.

23. The decisions in Uma Devi (supra) and A. Umarani (supra) were regarding  

the question concerning regularization of employees entered by back door method  

or those who were illegally appointed encouraging a political set up, in violation of  

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both the  

aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case i.e. to the members of the  

respondent- Employees Union for the following reasons:

(i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of the State   

of Gujarat by his order dated 3rd May, 2008 held  that initially the   

entry  of  the  daily  wagers  do  not  suffer  from  any  illegality  or  

Page 20

20

irregularity but is in consonance with the provisions of Minimum   

Wages Act.  Therefore, the question of regularization by removing   

procedural defects does not arise.  

(ii) The Gujarat  High Court  by its  judgment dated 29th October,   

2010 passed in SCA No.8647 of 2008 while noticing the aforesaid   

stand taken by the State also held that the nature of work described in   

the order dated 3rd May, 2008 shows that the daily wage-workers are   

engaged in the work which is perennial in nature.

(iii) The case of  A.Uma Rani (supra) related to regularization of   

services of irregular appointees.  In the said case this Court held that   

when  appointments  are  made  in  contravention  of  mandatory   

provisions  of  the  Act  and  statutory  rules  framed  therein  and  in   

ignorance of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and   

cannot be regularized by the State.

24. Thus, the principal question that falls to be considered in these appeals is  

whether in the facts and circumstances it will be desirable for the Court to direct  

the appellants to straightaway regularize the services of all the daily wage workers  

working for more than five years or the daily wage workers working for more than  

five years are entitled for some other relief.  

Page 21

21

25. As per scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 all the daily  

wage workers were not entitled for regularization or permanency in the services.  

As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits:

“(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing   Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in   first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical   allowance and national festival holidays.

(ii) Daily  wagers  and  semi  skilled  workers  who  has   service of more than five years and less than 10 years are   entitled  for  fixed  monthly  salary  along  with  dearness   allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days.   Such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to   14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays.   Such daily wagers will  also be eligible for getting medical   allowance and deduction of provident fund.

(iii) Daily  wagers  and  semi  skilled  workers  who  has   service  of  more than ten years  but  less  than 15 years  are   entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker   along with dearness  allowance as  per prevailing standard,   for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get   two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave   and  national  festival  holidays.  He/she  will  be  eligible  for   getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund.

(iv) Daily  wagers  and  semi  skilled  workers  who  has   service  of  more  than  15  years  will  be  considered  as   permanent  worker  and  such  semi  skilled  workers  will  get   current  pay  scale  of  skilled  worker  along  with  dearness   allowance,  local  city  allowance and house rent  allowance.   They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity,   retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get   two  optional  leave  in  addition  to  14  misc.  leave,  30  days   earned  leave,  20  days  half  pay  leave,  Sunday  leave  and   national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi   skilled  who  have  completed  more  than  15  years  of  their   service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years   service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay   scale  of  skilled  workers  and  their  salary  will  be  fixed   accordingly.”

Page 22

22

26. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Gujarat  

High Court dated 29th October, 2010 in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters  

and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the  

view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as  

contained in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 to all the daily wage workers  

of  the  Forest  and  Environment  Department  working  for  more  than  five  years,  

providing  them  the  benefits  as  per  our  finding  at  Paragraph  25  above.  The  

appellants are directed accordingly.  The judgment and order passed by the learned  

Single Judge dated 29th October, 2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its  

order dated 28th February, 2012 stands modified to the extent above.  The benefit  

should be granted to the eligible daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment  

Department working for more than five years including those who are performing  

work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the  

consequential benefit w.e.f. 29th October, 2010 or subsequent date from which they  

are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy  

of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and  

directions  to  the  appellant-State  and  its  authorities.  There  shall  be  no  separate  

orders as to costs.

Page 23

23

………..………………………………………..J.         (T.S. THAKUR)

………………………………………………….J.                     (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 9, 2013.