GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-14
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 04,2016

GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EARL OF HALSBURY,LC SAID IN QUINN V. LEATHEM [REFERRED TO]
LONDON GRAVING DOCK CO. LTD. VS. HORTON [REFERRED TO]
DR. MS. O.Z. HSSAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SMT. INDIRA GANDHI VS. SHRI RAJ NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
PRADYAT KUMAR BOSE VS. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P BALAKOTAIAH A SURYAPRASAD RAO DHONDBA ARJUN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. THERI WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
NORTH BROOK JUTE CO LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB AB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE MOUDHAPARA RAIPUR VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAIPUR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHANSU SEKHAR MISRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SHARDUL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
L HIRDAY NARAIN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER BAREILLY [REFERRED TO]
TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED THE WORKMEN VS. RAM MOHAN RAY:HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. TRILOKI NATH KHOSA [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. A.RAJAPPA [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI LAL LAKSHMI REDDY REPRE SENTED VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
SOM PRAKASH REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF C P W D [REFERRED TO]
AMBICA QUARRY WORKS AMBALAL MANIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR EMPLOYED UNDER PANDT DEPARTMENT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR EMPLOYED UNDER PANDT DEPARTMENT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH VS. K G S BHATT [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD BHAGWATI DEVI VS. DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD BHAGWATI DEVI VS. DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
DHARWAD DISTT P W D LITERATE DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
DHARWAD DISTT P W D LITERATE DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
GURMAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA BHILLAI ENGINEERING CORPORATION ANUP MALLEABLES BURN STANDARD CO TEXMACO CIMMCO TITAGARH STEELS VS. HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
MOOL RAJ UPADHYAYA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P K NARAYANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VS. JAGANNATH MARUTI KONDHARE [REFERRED TO]
BIBI SAYEEDA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN KUNJI RAMAN VS. KUNJI RAMAN:STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
FARIDABAD CT SCAN CENTRE VS. D G HEALTH SERVICES [REFERRED TO]
LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS PVT LIMITED VS. SHANKARPRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SUBEDAR SINGH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE MIRZAPUR [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HARBANSLAL SAHNIA VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. K K ROY [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. N R VAIRAMANI [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANKS STAFF UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DHAMPUR SUGAR KASHIPUR LTD VS. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL [REFERRED TO]
KUSUMAM HOTELS P LTD VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHATT VS. STATE OF JANDK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. CASTERIBE RAJYA P KARMCHARI SANGHATANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A S PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DAYA LAL [REFERRED TO]
J S YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
A P DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. B NARASIMHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M I ISANI EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT VS. SURENDRANAGAR JILLA PANCHAYAT BANDHAKAM MAJOOR SANGH [REFERRED TO]
K N THANAKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. NARSINHDAAS KRISHNADAS AGRAVAT [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
MGB GRAMIN BANK VS. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. UCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. HARIHAR YADAV [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI VS. THIRU R. GOVINDASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
NAND KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DURGAPUR CASUAL WORKERS UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AMARKANT RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Since the issues raised in the above captioned bunch of the writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.)The following are the observations made by the Supreme Court, speaking through His Lordship Dipak Mishra, J., in a very recent pronouncement in the case of State of Jharkhand and another vs. Harihar Yadav and others [2014 (2) SCC 114]:
"How does a constitutional court respond to a situation when a human problem of great magnitude frescoed on constitutional canvas gets painfully projected with intense sincerity, possibly realizing pain is one of the "sovereign masters of mankind"? How is the Court required to react in law when the workmen are forced to grapple with a colossal predicament of sense of belonging due to a situation created making them feel that they are neither here nor there? We consider it as an unbearable tragedy faced by the unfortunate employees warranting serious attention of this Court, for some employees have breathed their last due to starvation, constant stress being unable to meet the keen demands of appetite, and the impecuniosity that hampered them to avail timely treatment, and some families have been unwillingly driven to a state of unmeaningful survival ­ an animal existence ­ sans proper food, sans clothes and sans real shelter."

(3.)I am confronted with almost a similar situation wherein about more than 700 employees, working in the different departments of the State Government, have complained that they are in the work charged establishment past almost 30 years. Till this date, the authorities concerned have not taken any steps to put them on the temporary establishment. It is complained that as a result of such inaction on the part of the State Government, they have been deprived of the benefits which an employee otherwise derives working on the temporary establishment. Few of the petitioners have complained that although they have been absorbed in the temporary establishment, yet the same was at a very belated stage rather than absorbing them in the temporary establishment on completion of the five years of service in the work charged establishment, according to the policy of the State Government, as laid down in the circular dated 6th August, 1973.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.