Gujarat HC Counts Sundays, Public Holidays And Piece-Rate Service Toward Forest Workers’ 240-Day Threshold, Orders 1988 Benefits And 7th Pay From 2016

The petitioners were engaged as daily-wage workers by the Forest Department on different dates. From 2017, they were placed on piece-rate work, and they were denied benefits under the Government Resolutions dated 17 October 1988 and 15 September 2014.

They sought recalculation of their service, contending that Sundays and public holidays should be included when determining whether they completed 240 days in a year, and that piece-rate service should count.

Following the Court’s directions, the State filed attendance calculations that included Sundays, public holidays and piece-rate work; the calculations showed that the petitioners had completed between four and fifteen years with 240 days of service.

Clause 1 of the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 provides for specified benefits to eligible daily-rated workers upon completion of 240 days; the Resolution does not prescribe a separate method for calculating those days.

Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as interpreted in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, (1985) 4 SCC 71, require that days during which a workman remained in employment and was paid wages be considered in calculating qualifying service, including Sundays and paid holidays.

In State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees’ Union, (2013) 12 SCC 417, and State of Gujarat v. PWD and Forest Employees Union, (2019) 15 SCC 248, the Supreme Court addressed the benefits under the 1988 Resolution and required 240 days to be completed in each year counted for the relevant benefits.

The Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench decisions in Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai Rathod v. Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer v. Dhirabhai Bhurabhai Pagi support including Sundays and public holidays in the 240-day calculation for benefits under the Resolution.

Further, Kalsumben Jina Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2020 (4) GLR 2886, holds that piece-rate remuneration constitutes wages and that the corresponding work cannot be disregarded when assessing entitlement under the Resolution.

The Court held that although Clause 1 refers to completing 240 days in the first year, the Resolution does not prescribe how those days are to be counted; accordingly, the calculation must follow the principle in Workmen of American Express, including Sundays and public holidays.

It preferred the earlier Division Bench authority applying that principle to daily-wage workers claiming benefits under the 1988 Resolution, and found the State’s reliance on Ranjit Natvarlal Chauhan v. Morbi Nagar Palika, 2011 (2) GLR 1783, unpersuasive in light of the authorities discussed.

The Court also applied Kalsumben Jina Shah to conclude that piece-rate service must be counted, rather than excluded because of the mode of payment.

The State’s own attendance calculations, prepared pursuant to the Court’s directions, were therefore to be used in determining the petitioners’ entitlements.

It allowed the petition and directed the respondents to grant the benefits under the Resolutions dated 17 October 1988 and 15 September 2014, counting the petitioners’ piece-rate service in accordance with the attendance records filed by the State, and to extend the benefit of the Seventh Pay Commission with effect from 1 January 2016.

The authorities were directed to calculate and disburse the benefits, including arrears, within 60 days of the decision being uploaded; the petition was disposed of as allowed.