STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusPWD EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. ETC

                 [2013] 10 S.C.R. 1091


              STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.                       A
                            V.
        PWD EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. ETC.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 5321-5322 of 2013)
                      JULY 9, 2013
                                                            B
        [T.S. i:HAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

     Labour Law - Regularisation - Labour and other Unions
made representation to the State Government making C
demands and issues relating to daily wage workers of different
departments of the State Government - Committee
constituted by the State Government under the Chairmanship
of Minister of Road and Building Department - Committee
made recommendations favouring regularisation - D
Recommendations of the Committee accepted and
accordingly the State Government resolved to provide
benefits of regularization scheme contained in Resolutioh
dated 17th October, 1988 - Dispute over applicability of
Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 - Held: Resolution dated E
17th October, 1988 not limited to any particular department,
and applied to all departments including Road and Building,
Forest and Environment Department, Water Resources
Department, etc. and to all daily wage workers including semi-
skilled workers performing any nature of job, working in F
different departments of the State including the daily wage
workers of the Forest Department performing work other than
building maintenance and repairing work - However, as per
scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October, 1988,
all daily wage workers not entitled for regularization or G
permanency in the services - Direction issued for grant of
benefit of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 to eligible
daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department
working for more than 5 years including those performing work
                           1091                             H
    1092    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A   other than building maintenance and repairing w. e. f 29th
    October, 2010 or subsequent date from which they are so
    eligible - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.258.

      The questions which arose for consideration in the
8 instant appeals were: 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 were entitled to derive benefits of Jhe
  regularization scheme as contained in the Resolution
  dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the State from Road
C and Building Department; and (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
D Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

        Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. From a bare reading of the Resolution
E 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
F the Chairmanship, Minister of Road and Building
  Department. (c) The Committee was constituted for
  studying (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)
G 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. [Para 19) [1108-B-G]

H       1.2. The daily wage workers who were engaged in
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1093
                ORS. ETC.
building maintenance and repairing work in different           A
departments were already entitled for their work related
facilities. Therefore, 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        B
Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 has not limited it to
the daily wage workers working in building maintenance
and repairing work. The Resolution dated 17th October,
1988 is applicable to all the daily wage workers working
in different departments of the State including Forest and     c
Environment Department performing any nature of job
including the work other than building maintenance and
repairing work. [Para 20] [1108-G-H; 1109-A-B]
      1.3. The Resolution of the State Government dated
 17th October, 1988 is not limited to any particular           D
 department, it applies to all the departments including
 Road· and Building, Forest and Environment Department,
 Water Resources Department, etc. Also the Committee·
 headed by the Minister of Road and Building Department
 looked into the wages of daily wage workers and work          E
 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                F
 engaged in building maintenance and repairing work in
 different departments by its aforesaid Resolution. It is
 applicable to all daily wage workers including semi-skilled
 workers performing any nature of job, working in
·different departments of the State including the daily        G
 wage work,ers of the Forest Department performing work
 other than building maintenance and repairing work.
 [Para 21] [1109-F~H; 1110-A-B]
    1.4. The impugned order passed by the Single Judge
and the Division Bench arise out of the final order and        H
    1094    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A judgment dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the High
  Court in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters
  wherein it was held that the nature of work showed that
  the daily wage-workers were engaged in the work which
  is perennial in nature. The said order has reached finality
B 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. [Paras 22, 23) [1110-C-D; 1111-B]

         1.5. However, as per scheme contained in Resolution
C   dated 17th October, 1988 all the daily wage workers were
    not entitled for regularization or permanency in the
    services. Considering, the facts and circumstances of th~
    case, the finding of the High Court dated 29th October,
    2010 in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters and the
D   fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties,
    the appellants are 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
E   years. 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
F   benefit w.e.f. 29th October, 2010 or subsequent date from
    which they are so eligible. [Paras 25, 26) [1111-E-F; 1112-
    G-H; 1113-A, B-C]
      Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers
G Union vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 2 GLH 302: (2004) 2 GLR
  568 - overruled.
       Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Uma Devi
  (3) and Others (2006) 4 sec 1: 2006 (3) SCR 953 and A.
  Vmarani v. Registrar Co-operative Societies and Others
H (2004) 7 SCC 112 - held inapplicable.
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION & 1095
                ORS. ETC.
                      Case Law Reference:                          A

  (2004) 2 GLR 568         overruled              Para 4
  2006 (3) SCR ·953        held inapplicable      Para 16(iv)
  (2004) 7 sec 112        held inapplicable       Para 16(iv)      8
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5321-5322 of 2013.

     From the Judgment and Order 28.02.2012 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.         c
1754 of 2011 in Special Civil Application No. 8647 of 2008
and Letters Patent Appeal No. 88 of 2012 in Special Civil
Application No. 8751 of 2008.

    L.N. Rao, Shamik Sanjanwala, Hemantika Wahi, Mayank            D
Pandey for the Appellants.

    P.H. Parekh (for Parekh & Co.) for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave                      E
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       F
by the State of Gujarat and its officials has been dismissed and
the order dated 25th 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.                                                           G

    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
                                                                   H
    1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A Unions made a representation to the 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
B 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
c 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
D the Committee decided to accept all the said recommendations
  and resolved as follows:

       "RESOLUTION

            The Government has taken into consideration the
E      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.
F      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 eligible for paid Sunday, medical
G      allowance and national festival holidays.

       (2) As per provisions of Section 258 of the Industrial
       disputes act, daily wagers and semi skilled workers who
       has service of more than five years but less than 10 years
H      as on 1.10. 1988, will get Rs. 7501- as fixed monthly salary
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1097
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

   alongwith dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, A
   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.                                          B

   (3) As per provisions of Section 258 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 C
   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.                              D
   (4) As per provisions of Section 258 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           E
   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      F
   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 258 of        G
   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
                                                                  H
    1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013} 10 S.C.R.


A       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.
8
       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
C 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
D 17th October, 1988 is applicable to the employees of the
  Forest Department as well.

        4. Against the aforesaid decision an LPA No.1642of1999
  was filed by the State Government which was dismissed by the
E 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
F 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
G 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
H Department, and not to the daily wage workers engaged in
STATE OF GUJJ.\RAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION & 1099
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

other type of work in that Department.                                A

        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                     B
  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,            C
  Forest Department, 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      D
  Department and the then ancillary resolutions. With the
  aforesaid observation, the following decision was taken by the
  Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999:

      "RESOLUTOIN                                                     E
            In connection with aforesaid preface regarding
     daily-wagers 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,
                                                                      F

       1.    On the basis of report of Hon'ble Shri Daulatbhai
             Parmar Committee, the Resolution dated 171101
             1988 of the Roads & Building Department, which
             is passed regarding wages, services & other G
             facilities to be applied to the daily-wagers,
             labourers and workers of Forest Department under
             the control of Forest & Environment Department,
             cannot be applied in view of work of daily-wagers
             of the Forest Department and in view of nature of H
    1100        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2013) 10 S.C.R.


A                work and financial arrangement and their
                 temporary/seasonal & limited work, because on
                 applying the said resolution, after completion of
                 work, such daily-wagers cannot be employed
                 continuously for Jong time where there is no work.
B                But they are supposed to be removed. In view of
                 the said circumstances, on the basis of report of
                 Hon'ble Shri Dau/atbhai Parmar Committee, there
                 is no intention of applying Resolution dated 171101
                 1998 of the Roads & Building Department to the
c                daily-wagers of the Forest Department of the State
                 Government.

           2.    Jn the Notification issued from time to time
                 regarding minimum wages also, minimum wages
                 for the daily-wagers of the Forest Department is
D                indicated separately and in view of the burden of
                 their work, in comparison with daily-wagers of
                 construction wages is indicated at Jess rate, which
                 falls under heading of reasonable classification,
                 therefore, the Resolution dated 1711011988 of the
E                Roads & Building, Department cannot be applied
                 for the said reasons.

           3.    These orders have been passed in view of
                 opinion/consent, vide entry dated 0511111999 of
F                the Legal Department, ·entry dated 1811111999 of
                 the Finance Department and entry dated 251111
                 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
G (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 Gujarat dated 21st March, 1997
H in Special Civil Application No.3500 of 1992, which was upheld
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1101
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
by the Division Bench vide letter dated 29th April, 2003 and         A
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           B
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    C
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     D
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        E
(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            F
30th October, 2006 to the Secretary, Forest and Environment
Department, the Secretary, Finance Department, the 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              G
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       H
    1102     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A   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.
B
         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.
c
        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
D 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
E   posts which were otherwise 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".

F      11. After the rejection of the representation, the
  respondents-Employees Union had to again move before the
  Hig~ Court in SCA No.8647 of 2008 challenging the order of
  rejection dated 3rd May, 2008. Ori hearing the parties and
  perusal of record, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
G 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
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1103
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

   wagers does ·not suffer from any illegality or irregularity    A
   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      8
   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, Narf!1ada Water
   Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, etc.          C
   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,          D
   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 Resolution dated 17th October, 1988          E
   in respect to the daily wagers in their Forest Department.

   (vi) In compliance of award passed by the Labour Court
   in Reference (IT) No.386188, a number of daily wagers
   of the Forest Department who have completed 5 years            F
   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   G
   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.              H
    1104        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A          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
B                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 &
c                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
D
                 passed supporled by detailed reasons.

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

E          4.    Liberty to revive the petitions in case of difficulty
                 by filing required app/ication/s."

         Against the judgment dated 29th October, 2010 no appeal
    was preferred by the State Government or by any person and,
F   thereby, the said judgment reached finality.

        12. The 1st respondent- Employees Union, thereafter
  requested the Chief Secretary, Forest & Environment
  Department by letter dated 2oth November, 2010 to consider
  the issue and pass an appropriate resolution in consultation with
G the Union. However, no action has been ta~en. 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,
H
 STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1105
 ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

 Forest & Environment Department by order dated 21st April,            A
 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            B
 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               c
 supernumerary posts pursuant to the High Court of Gujarat order
 dated 21st March, 1997 passed in SCA No.3500 of 1992.
 There 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.
                                                                       D
       14. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat by
  order dated 25th 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       E
  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        F
  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          G
 affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned common
 Jµdgment dated 28th February, 2012. Hence, the present SLPs
 are preferred by the State.

      16. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended
 as follows:                                                           H
    1106    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013110 S.C.R.


A       (i) The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
        cannot direct absorption, regularization or permanency
        of the daily wage workers unless the recruitment itselfwas
        made in a regular manner in terms of the constitutional
        scheme.
B
        (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
c       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,
D       (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
E       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.
F
       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 binding
  between the parties i.e. the appellants and the respondents as
G 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
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1107
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

    October, 1988 is equally applicable to the daily wage         A
    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          8
    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              C
    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         D
    from Forest & Environment Department is contrary to the
    scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October,
    1988 issued by the State of Gujarat.

    (iv) The Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat      E
    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.
                                                                  F
     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          G
    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;
                                                                  H
    1108     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A        (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,
B        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
C        Government making demands and issues relating to
         daily wage workers of different departments of the
         Government.

         (b) The State Government constituted a committee under
D        the Chairmanship, Minister of Road and Building
         Department.

         (c) The Committee was constituted for studying

         (i) the wages of daily wage workers;and
E
        (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.
F       (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.

G      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
H maintenance and repairing work in different departments of the
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION &1109
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

State. The State Government vide its Resolution dated 17th        A
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         B
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           c
issued from Forest and 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               D
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) E
 proceeded on erroneous premisss 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 F
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 Com,mittee G
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 H
    1110     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   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 daily wage workers including
    semi-skilled workers performing any nature of job, working in
B   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
C 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.
D 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.
E
        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
F 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
G       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 irregularity but is in
        consonance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
        Therefore, the question of regularization by removing
H       procedural defects does not arise.
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION & 1111
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

     (ii) The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated 29th         A
     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.              B

     (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 C
     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       D
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.                                                       E

    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
                                                                    F
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.               G

    (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
                                                                    H
    1112     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A       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 me.dical allowance and deduction of provident
        fund.
B
        (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
c       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.

D       (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.
E       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
F       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. n

G      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
H of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17th
STATE OF GUJARAT v. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION & 1113
ORS. ETC. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

October, 1988 to all the daily wage workers of the Forest and       A
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        B
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   c
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
                                                                    0
authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs.

8.8.8.                                   Appeals disposed of.