Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Saiyed Ibrahim President vs State Of Gujarat Thro.The Secretary on 8 May, 2018
10. Apt would be to refer to the decision of this
Court rendered in case of PWD Employees Union
through President Saiyed Ibrahim and 18 vs. State of
Gujarat through Secretary & 2 in Special Civil
Application No. 5530 of 2003 and allied matters,
where this Court (Coram:- Mr. G.R.Udhwani, J.) had
considered the grievance of non-grant of certain
benefits including the leave encashment.
State Of Gujarat vs Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr. Etc. on 14 May, 2015
11. Following the decision in case of State of
Gujarat & Anr. vs. Mahendrakumar
Bhagvandas & Anr., reported in 2011 (2) GLR
1290, the Court granted the service benefits.
Referring to the said decision of Mahendrakumar
Bhagvandas (supara), the Division Bench by treating
all original petitioners as the regular employees from
their initial date of appointment, granted
consequential benefits available to the government
employee as per the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. The
Court held that when daily rated employees are
regularized in service and made permanent
employees pursuant to G.R. dated 17.10.1988, such
employees cannot be denied the service benefits
available to regular permanent employees and such
denial would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Gujarat vs Pwd And Forest Employees Union on 15 February, 2019
13. The Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat vs.
PWD and Forest Employees Union, reported in
2019(3) Scale 642 has also in relation to the
Page 7 of 8
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 29 00:50:30 IST 2020
C/SCA/1946/2020 ORDER
challenge to a common judgment of the High Court in
the contempt petition had examined the benefits
given to the daily waged workers on the strength of
the resolution dated 17.10.1988 where the grant of
earned leave is also affirmed part of the judgment.
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
14. The issue is no longer res-integra and already
governed by all the above referred decisions. Labour
Court has committed no error in granting monetary
benefit of the earned leaves to each of the
respondents. It is trite that this Court in exercising
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
is not expected to interfere unless the
judgment/order/award is visited with patent error on
the face of record or illegality as referred to in the
decision of R. M. Yellatti vs. Assistant Executive
Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106. Resultantly,
no interference is desirable in any of the matters as
the orders suffer from neither illegality nor any error
going to the root of the matter. The order passed by
the Labour Court is confirmed in toto.
1