Gujarat High Court
Dahod District Panchayat Thru ... vs Ramchhodbhai Sursinh Bariya Decd. ... on 18 February, 2020
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3994 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3998 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4001 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4005 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4007 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4009 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4031 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4032 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4033 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4034 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4035 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4037 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4038 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4039 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4040 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4041 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4042 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4043 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4045 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4046 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4048 of 2019
With
Page 1 of 22
Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020
C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4053 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4058 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4059 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4063 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4065 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4067 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4070 of 2019
==========================================================
DAHOD DISTRICT PANCHAYAT THRU EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1
other(s)
Versus
RAMCHHODBHAI SURSINH BARIYA DECD. THRU. WD/O. KALIBEN
RANCHHODBHAI BARIYA
==========================================================
Common Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioners
MR PC CHAUDHARY 4) for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 18/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. In this group of matters, the petitioners Dahod District Panchayat and another have challenged the Judgement and Awards passed by the Labour Court, Dahod in respective Recovery Applications under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"
for convenience), by which the Labour Court directed the petitioner to make payment of leave encashment to the respondents - workmen or to the heirs, if the workman has expired. Since all the petitions contained identical question Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER of law and facts, they are being heard, decided and disposed of by this common order.
2. Facts necessary for adjudication of disputes are drawn from special Civil Application No.3994 of 2019 :
2.1. The petitioner Dahod District Panchayat is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 after constitution of districts in 1997.
2.2. The respondent - Ranchhodbhai Sursinh Bariya was appointed as a daily wager on 1/5/1989 purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis depending upon the availability of work and fund and was later on given benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988. He retired on 28/2/2009 and was released all retiral benefits as per the provisions of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and as benefit of leave encashment was made not available on the ground that the same is not provided by the Government of Gujarat in the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, the said benefit was not released.
2.3. The said respondent passed away and after more than seven years, the heirs of the respondent workman filed Recovery Application No.81 of 2016 before the Labour Court, Dahod for the benefit of leave encashment.
2.4. The petitioner filed written statement contending that the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 on the basis of which the respondent was claiming the service benefits by way of regularizing his services and letter dated 12/9/1981 issued Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER by the Road and Building department of the Government of Gujarat clearly lays down that the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 are not entitled to various benefits including leave encashment. The Labour Court, ultimately, allowed the Recovery Application and directed the petitioner to make payment of leave encashment of 300 Earned Leave of Rs.78,720/- to the widow of the respondent workman within 30 days with cost of Rs.1000/-. Similar order is passed in other Recovery Applications. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Judgement and Awards passed by the Labour Court, Dahod in respective Recovery Applications under sections 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act.
The prayer sought for by the petitioner are as follows :-
"7(A). Be pleased to admit the present Special Civil Application;
(B). Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by way of passing appropriate orders, writ, mandamus or directions or writ of territory quashing and setting aside the order dated 18/9/18 passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court at Dahod in Recovery Application No.81/16 directing petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.78,720/- towards retiral benefits of encashment of leave annexed as ANNEXURE-E in the interest of justice.
(C). Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER Civil application be pleased to stay the implementation, execution & operation of theorder dated 18/9/18 passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court at Dahod in Recovery Application No.81/16 directing petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.78,720/- towards retiral benefits of encashment of leave annexed as ANNEXURE-E in the interest of justice.
(D). Be pleased to call for the record of the case bearing from the Hon'ble Labour Court at Dahod.
(E). Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature of the case may be required and the Hon'ble Court may be deemed thought fit to pass such order."
3. This Court issued Notice for final disposal vide order dated 2/8/2019.
4. This Court has heard extensively Mr.Munshaw, leanred advocate for the petitioner Panchayat. He has urged that the impugned orders passed in respective Recovery Applications are arbitrary and erroneous. According to him, four benefits namely leave encashment, travelling allowance, transport allowance and Leave Travel Allowance (LTC) are not available to the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 who are working as daily wagers.
4.1. Mr.Munshaw also urged that though the decision of Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and another Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another, reported in 2011(2) GLR 1290 has been confirmed upto the Apex Court, the benefits of leave encashment is not available to the respondents workmen, as they have been made permanent subsequently and they continued to remain daily wagers and there is difference between the regular employee and the permanent employee and though the respondents are made permanent in view of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, they are not regular employee and they cannot be equated with regular employee.
4.2. Mr.Munshaw further urged that this Court and co- ordinate bench have passed various orders directing to grant the benefits of leave encashment to the respondent workmen who were made permanent pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, however, number of appeal including Letters Patent Appeal No.587 of 2018 and allied appeals have been preferred before the Division Bench and in those appeals, extensive hearing has taken place and the matters are now posted for pronouncement of judgement and he, therefore, urged that this Court should not pass any order in relation to leave encashment, involved in all these petitions, as the possibility may not be ruled out that the Division Bench may have a different version of its own.
4.3. Mr.Munshaw further urged that the respondents workmen were not offered work on any permanent and sanctioned posts and therefore, they are not entitled to any service benefits available to "Civil Servant" or "Panchayat Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER Servant" recruited in accordance with the provisions of Gujarat Civil Services Rules or Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993.
4.4. Mr.Munshaw also argued that the respondents being beneficiaries Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, are not entitled to various benefits including leave encashment.
4.5. Learned counsel submitted that so far as leave encashment is concerned, there is no specific policy of the State and the adjudication by a competent court is a must and therefore, preferring recovery application straightway before this Court without an adjudication is impermissible according to him.
4.6. He has also emphasized that the Labour Court erred in relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.558 of 2018.
4.7. Mr.Munshaw further urged that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another (supra) does not specifically speak of grant of benefit of leave encashment to the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988.
5. Mr.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the respondents workmen in all these petitions has urged that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed in limine. He urged that this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another (supra), which is in operation from 2011. He Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER urged that in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in no uncertain terms has held that, once daily rated employees are regularized and made permanent by Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, they cannot be denied any service benefits which are available to the regular permanent employees. It is further observed that, it is not in the hands of the State Government also to take away the benefits already granted earlier. In the said decision the Division Bench frowned upon treating those employees as permanent daily wage employees.
5.1. Mr.Chaudhary further urged that this Bench has passed a detailed order in a group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.555 of 2020 and allied matters on 10/1/2020, where this Court has granted the benefits of leave encashment allowance to the similarly situated employees. Therefore, also this Court is required to grant the benefits of leave encashment to the respondents herein - workmen. This when was challenged before the Apex court, so interference is made in the said ratio.
5.2. Mr.Chaudhary also relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Natubhai Chhibabhai Patel in Special Civil Application No.15669 of 2019, which was also challenged and confirmed by the division Bench in Appeal.
6. Having heard both the sides extensively, at the outset it is required to be noted that in all these petitions, the workmen and in case of death of the workmen, heirs of the workmen preferred Recovery Applications under section 33(C)(2) before Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER the Labour Court, Dahod for leave encashment. The petitioner herein opposed the same by way of filing written statement contending that the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 are not entitled to leave encashment, as they are not regular permanent employees, but, they are made permanent pursuant to the scheme of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and therefore, the benefits available to the regular permanent employees, are not available to the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988. The Labour Court, took note of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and discussed at length the submissions of both the sides and also considered the entire material on record. The Labour Court considered the scheme of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and held that when the employees are entitled to pension, the contention of the petitioner herein cannot be accepted that they are not entitled to benefits of leave encashment. The Labour Court observed that there is no mention in the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 about non-grant of benefit of leave encashment and since all the benefits otherwise available to the permanent employees are given to the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, they are entitled to benefits of leave encashment. The Labour Court also considered the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.558 of 2018, wherein the Labour Court passed order u/s.33(C)(2) of ID Act in Recovery Application No.47 of 2012 directing to make payment of leave encashment and same was challenged in Special Civil Application No.1925 of 2016, which was rejected against which Letters Patent Appeal No.558 of 2018 was preferred, where the Division Bench did not entertain the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court u/s.33(C)(3) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also examined the factum of availability of 300 Earned Leave available to the respondents workmen. After making a detailed discussion, the Labour Court passed the judgement and Awards in the respective Recovery Applications, impugned in these petitions, directing the petitioner to pay leave encashment converting the maximum 300 Earned Leave into monetary benefits as per the last pay of the workmen.
7. Present petitions have been preferred firstly on the ground that there was no adjudication with regard to the earned leave and therefore, issuance of the recovery certificates straightway was not permissible. This Court is not in agreement with this submissions made by Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner Panchayat. Once all the benefits otherwise available to the permanent employees are given to the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, they are entitled to benefits of all benefits including the leave encashment and the Labour Court noted the grant of this benefit in the earlier petition wherein the order was made in the recovery application and not in a reference.
8. This Court has passed order in Letters Patent Appeal No.558 of 2018. In the said case, the Labour Court passed order u/s.33(C)(2) of ID Act in Recovery Application No.47 of 2012 directing to make payment of leave encashment and the same was challenged in Special Civil Application No.1925 of 2016. The said petition was rejected by the the Co-ordinate Bench, against which Letters Patent Appeal No.558 of 2018 Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER was preferred and the the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court u/s.33(C)(3) of the I.D. Act. Relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.558 of 2018 read as follow :-
"3. We have perused the order passed by the Labour Court as well learned Single Judge and circular dated 2.12.2015 applicable in the case of workman. Even objections raised and reply filed by the employer in the application filed under Section 33 (C) (2) of I.D.Act, 1947 towards claim of leave encashment and interest etc., and other resolutions including that of 17.10.1988, we find that it is not in dispute that on completion of number of years of service so envisaged in the G.R. Dated 17.10.1988 namely, 15, 20 and 25 years w.e.f. 1.10.1988 such rojamdar/workman is entitled for various benefits available to the regular and permanent employee. Even DCRG and pension is also available to such employees. We find no reason that such workman should not be entitled for leave encashment available to other employees and accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge.
4. In absence of merit, appeal is disposed of."
9. This Court notices that in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another (supra), the Division Bench was Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER considering the judgement and order arising from Special Civil Application No.5699 of 1987 and allied matters. In all these matters, the respondents workmen made a prayer in respect of treating them as a regular employees from their initial date of appointment and for grant of consequential benefits available to regular government servants relying on the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988. The Division Bench of this Court examined the same and held that once the employees are treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, subsequently re-branded as "daily wager"
(Rojamdar) by Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 could not be rationally explained and could not countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under subsequent Government Resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and no earlier Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. The Division Bench further observed and held that, the State Government also legally cannot take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under the subsequent Government Resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988. It is further held and observed by the Division Bench that, it also sounds absurd and baseless that employees employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager.Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER
10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.15669 of 2019 had an occasion to consider the very benefits of leave encashment. In the said decision, it relied on the decision in the case of Babarbhai Ambalalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.6396 of 2018 decided on 17/1/2019 as well as decision in the case of Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan rendered in Special Civil Application No.8498 of 2019 dated 3/5/2019, which came to be confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1614 of 2019. In the said decision in the case of Natubhai Chhibabhai Patel (supra), Coordinate Bench directed the respondents to extend the benefit of leave encashment of 300 days to the petitioners on their retirement, however, observed that it will be open for the authorities to verify about the admissibility of 300 days for conversion into leave encashment, as per decision in LPA No.1614 of 2019. Relevant findings and observations of the order of the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.15669 of 2019 dated 28/11/2019 reads thus :-
"5. In Babarbhai Ambalalbhai Patel (supra), this court relied on Chimansingh Nathusingh Solanki vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 21473 of 2016 decided on 27.12.2017. In Chimansingh Nathusingh Solanki (supra), the following was observed which forms the reasoning of this order, "5. As far as the first prayer is concerned, learned advocate could successfully rely on Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.9484 of 2013 dated 21st August, 2015 in Jorubhai Jijibhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat wherein the petitioner was retired employee whose grievance was about non-
payment of leave encashment upon his retirement. This Court relied on decision in State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas [2011 (2) GLR 190] which was confirmed upto the Apex Court, and held in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to leave enashment which benefit would held to be flowing from the State Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.
5.1 In Jorubhai Jijibhai Dabhi (supra) it was held as under, "9. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for respondent No.1 does not dispute that the case of State of Gujarat and another vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another(supra) has reached to the conclusion at the hands of the Apex Court, whereas the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal NO.325 of 2013 is bagging attention, as the same has been challenged before the Apex Court. He has urged, therefore, not to decide the matter on merits.
10. On thus having heard learned Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER advocates for both the sides and having also considered the list of events so also the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the decisions of the Apex Court and that of Letters Patent Appeal Bench, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the leave encashment benefit for being the permanent employees of the respondent authorities. This Court has interpreted the entitlement of permanent employees, who have become permanent by virtue of the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Leave encashment benefits in the decision sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is granted in the following manner:-
5. As noted earlier, subsequent G.R. Dated 18.7.1994 is expressly superseding the instructions contained in government resolution dated 3.11.1990 but does not supersede original G.R. Dated 17.10.1988. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned in terms of G.R. Dated 17.10.1988. Under such Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order.
However, no ground or rational basis could be made out for grant of most of the benefits to most of the employees in terms of G.R. Dated 17.10.1988 and for denial of the remaining few benefits.
Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. Dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently re-
branded as daily wager (rojamdar) by G.R. Dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. Dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. Dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best permanent daily wage employees, is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment except for the clarification made hereunder.
6. Letters Patent Appeal Nos.960, 961, 964 and 965 of 2001 are preferred from common oral judgment dated 6.4.2000 of learned Single Judge of this Court, inter alia, in Special Civil Application Nos.28, 64, 67 and 68 of 1988 whereby original petitioners, working under the appellants herein, were directed to be given benefits in following terms:
11. ... ... ... In terms of the order passed in earlier case on 23/10/1999, the respondents are directed to extend Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER all the benefits of regular employees to the petitioner, who have been made permanent employees in regular scale of pay for more than 10 years of service.
They should not be discriminated with other employees. With the aforesaid observations and direction all the petitions are allowed and accordingly disposed of. ... ... ...
11. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Leave encashment benefits shall be paid to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If not paid, interest at the rate of 6% shall be calculated on the amount granted. Petition is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
5.2 The aforesaid decision was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 decided on 26th July, 2016. The Division Bench also referred to observations in paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and observed as under.
7. The issue before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas(supra) was similar. There also there was no controversy about the fact that the concerned petitioners who entered services as daily rated employees have been regularized in their service under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and most of the benefits under the said Government Resolution available to the regular government servants were extended to the concerned petitioners. However, the said petitions were resisted on the ground that the said petitioners were daily rated employees and the benefits accorded to the permanent employee of the government could not be extended to them. In the said case, learned Single Judge, after considering the Government Resolutions, opined that the said petitioners were regular permanent employees of the respondent and were entitled to all the benefits of permanent employees of the concerned respondents. The petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction that all the workmen concerned be treated as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and they were to be granted all the benefits as such.
Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER5.3 The Division Bench in the said Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 also referred to another Division Bench judgment dated 30th October, 2015 delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1310 of 2015 and held to confirm the Jorubhai Jijibhai Dabhi (supra) and finally stated as under.
10. Thus, we are of the opinion that the present case is also squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions rendered by this Court. Learned Single Judge has, therefore, not committed any error while placing reliance upon the Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas(supra). We are also in agreement with the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge."
5.1 The decision in Babarbhai Ambalalbhai Patel (supra) was relied on by the Court in Ganpatji Nenaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.8498 of 2019 which was decided on 3.5.2019. Against the decision in Ganpatji Nenaji Thakor (supra), Letters Patent Appeal No.1614 of 2019 was filed.
5.2 The Division Bench did not disturb the entitlement for 300 days leave adjudged for the petitioner. However, liberty was given to the Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER appellant authorities to verify about the admissibility of 300 days by observing and modifying the order as under:-
"6. Thus without disturbing the entitlement allowed by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this appeal with the limited modification that before making the payment, the appellants would verify about the admissibility of 300 days for conversion into leave encashment as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge considering the total length of the service of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2)."
6. In view of above position of law emerging, the present petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of leave encashment of 300 days to the petitioners on their retirement. However, it will be open for the authorities to verify about the admissibility of 300 days for conversion into leave encashment as clarified by the Division Bench as per paragraph-6 reproduced hereinabove. Upon the petitioners having been found entitled to 300 days leave, after undertaking above exercise, the benefit shall be paid to the petitioners within period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order."
11. Resultantly, all these petitions are dismissed. The Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020 C/SCA/3994/2019 ORDER findings and observations so also the order of issuance of Recovery Certificate directing the petitioners herein to pay amount towards leave encashment warrant no interference. The petitioners are directed to make the payment of leave encashment to the respective respondents herein, as ordered by the Labour Court in the impugned Judgement and Awards passed in the respective Recovery Applications, impugned in the respective writ petitions, within a period of TWELVE WEEKS FROM TODAY. However, as observed by the Division Bench in the case of Ganpatji Nenaji Thakore in LPA No.1614 of 2019 (supra), it will be open for the petitioner Panchayat to verify about the availability of leave of 300 days for conversion into leave encashment. No order as to costs.
SD/-
(SONIA GOKANI, J) RAFIK..
Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:30:05 IST 2020