Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr.Clerk submitted that even in the order of BIFR, "all the workers" are referred to, instead of referring to only permanent workers. Mr. Clerk submitted that Badli workers are not claiming any enhanced or additional benefit. They are claiming the benefits at par with the other employees of respondent no.1, under the scheme. Mr.Clerk submitted that as 'Badli workers' are the workers of GDDC Limited, respondent no.1 herein, they are to be given equal treatment. In this regard learned advocate placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter between Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1974 SC 259. According to Mr.Clerk once a person is born on a cadre, his source of entry becomes immaterial. Mr.Clerk submitted that when the names of Badli workers are on the muster roll of GDDC Limited alike other workers, they are to be given the same benefits though they are Badli workers.

7. Mr.Clerk, learned advocate also contended that respondent no.1 has calculated the amount, payable to one Shri Shaileshkumar N. Soni, whose name is mentioned in para 3 of the petition. That the remaining Badli workers may also be ordered to be paid in the same terms. Mr.Clerk submitted that he is ready to restrict his claim under VRS for Badli workers to the extent that the Badli workers may be paid benefits of VRS by taking into consideration such number of years of service during which Badli worker has completed 240 days.

20. Mr.Patel submitted that some of the Badli workers had filed a Special Civil Application for the benefit of regularisation, the details of which are set out in para 4 of the petition. Said petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. But thereafter appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.275 of 1997, is allowed and the said judgement of the learned Single Judge does not hold the field now.

21. Mr.Patel, learned advocate submitted that so far the contention raised about four persons whose names are mentioned in para 3 of the petition are concerned, the same is replied in para 8 of the affidavit in reply. Along with the affidavit in reply, appointment orders of these persons are also produced. Mr.Patel submitted that these four persons were the heirs of the persons who had held permanent post and that with a view to avoid any industrial unrest these persons were appointed and that they were nominated as daily rated Badli workers, they constituted a separate and distinct class and there is nothing comparable between these persons and the other Badli workers at large. Mr.Patel submitted that mainly they were appointed on compassionate grounds. Though they were nominated as daily rated/ Badli workers they were employed for all the days and they were getting salary accordingly. Mr.Patel invited attention to the contents of para 8 of the affidavit in reply at extenso.

25. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the sides and rival contentions raised by both the sides, it is clear that the VRS floated by the circular dated 8.7.1999 is meant only for permanent officers and employees of respondent no.1. Floating of VRS for its employees is a matter of policy decision and in view of the settled legal position, intervention of the court in the policy matters is not warranted. So far as the persons whose names are set out in para 3 of the petition it is clear from the affidavit in reply that though these persons were termed as 'daily rated badli workers', their appointment was on compassionate grounds and they did form a distinct and separate class and cannot be compared with other Badli workers, more particularly in light of the fact that the other Badli workers did not get any work since 1992.