Daily wager employees challenging wage disparity with regular permanent employees under the Minimum Wages Act. Bench held daily workers lack equivalence in recruitment, qualifications, and service conditions, dismissing claim for wage parity.
Writ petitions dismissed; petitioners have no legal right to claim wage parity with regular employees.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
•fo...^:^^ 1 ?^'ft^»J^$l^y.L^.<. ^yS^^^ft^-^^^
3
J
^Sr^e1e(fSf) ^•SSM'/tten^ Tf^Mh RAPUP.
^T^T^l'l'rt^l ^T^Ty^ll^Rcb 3rf^cb<U| <l^y (^»TT»)
| 3TT.X?. 9».(^^c>^) / 2000 |
||
|---|---|---|
| 1. | ^RRPT^yRP311^1\J1^R^TIcT^JW | |
| ^S 38 qr4, WRTqr?? (T-q^^gl^ch) | ||
| 2. | WT Rsidiq^t cFE^3TTW3r^T.3TR. cFC^ | |
| .^. | ^H40q4, TFIZT^n?y (T-^Tc'?^gWcb) | |
| 3. | ^hcT^^FT^n^^n^Fjf^ra". ^I^)^IHw^ | |
| ^H4iq^, WTOqTc? (T-8re?7r?Pra?) | ||
| 4. | g^TR cFTpgrTcfuH^ft3TRFFJT<g^^^R cTI?r^< | |
| ^ET36q4WTOqflcy (T-8R?^^l^cb) | ||
| 5. | ^^TSTFTRy?fTOllcHvjl^^^Rqqid yTT | |
| ^3S 52q4, WPT^Tcy (T-^Tc?^gHch) | ||
| 6. | ;?PT3:R?TRTT^ft3TIW3T^i^q TJt'ft | |
| ^H43^, WTOqic^ (T-2Tc^^IZR?) | ||
| 7. | PtR^T^pTR^rai^tCTWjfq^ly^ic, f^Tcn^t | |
| ^H 36^, WTSfqic5 (T-^TCT^gWcb) | ||
| 8. | Ricidid f^FgT^n^FjT^FT^T R4v-gl | |
| ^3^33q4, WTZT^Tc'? (T-^TCT^gWch) | ||
| 9. | ^iiRicp^i^i cif]rf$T^p3iic*i\ji ^m+i ^Rra? | |
| ^3S43q4, WPT^TI^ (T-Sl^^gWcb) | ||
| 10. | ^?T^TRW^^TTWjTg^T^FTW^ | |
| ^H 37^4, WTOqi?? (TWy^I?TOZp) | ||
| 11. | g^^RTTt^tCTWjf;?FT?RUT^ft | |
| 9H54q4, WTO'qT?5 (T-8Ic?^gWcb) | ||
| 12. | gci^M cr^T3i | |
| ^S 38^ WTO^TT^ (T-8TCT^^Wcb) | ||
| 13. | ^S^TK^l<idl^l4 3TTW3T^?N?^dd | |
| ^3S 33^, 'WTOqTc5 (T-q^y^gl^cb) | ||
| 14. | fqa<<\Jl1\1^cp | |
| ^S 59q4, WTOqTO (T-si^^gl^cb) | ||
| 15. | amcp^ui ?Fft3TIWjTWWfFT?Fft | |
| ^S 49q^, WT? qTci? (T-STR^gWcb) |
1 "il
k
S861 i±bl^jieIn^cbiyiO cbyi^ll^K 61- lUtS Pj^P-K^ Kh fc£J^LK
Inl^cbb^lMC
(°>i^|p.<n) ^ltb-l^iy '.4 ^ltb 'l^k^^ltb
(tbS^I.X JJteJ^ J±l2k) l»kl^.bj Inlkycb)^ i|j:h ^COIh^Itb (^u^fi) ^Ebi^ 'itUtiy lniky (bi^ (^£1) 'IDbkjl^ b5>K (Skl^dS) ^KblX '^h 'J^h '^'^1
'I^IkbJ lnjkytb(t0
'bbJ^ 1>.IS ^ml^°>l^^l<n (•JS'li)wih|h'hbh Itl^Ia 'l^lkbJ ln^kytb|^ 'bbj^ I^15'i±JMl&"fi'lt
^A^
^'
fole <:ia>>Jolt^; (^LJ^fl) ^jtb- ItOI^J 'Xc^Kfo ItUti^ (^Slth Itel^ i±feh)ItUtlgJ iniky(b|^ (sj9dee>i eiuii) Mhbhth^tth ((bblS^ COte-^) Wh hk^ /^b Lfr K?N •Zl. [XlbDJ tOll^^bR K\k31^ [XIby teihdtKl (^tilSIh S°te-l) ^lh *^^^ i^l2 Zfr M£^ bblb lOltOcbR -b-^ KM^II^ bblb klXlhk •91.
-zo-
-i
^
» 'v'\
/^"7 ••::'-::--"i^W.,::, yi'K^y' '-'II
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
S.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Aearwal
W.PIS1 No.2601/2005
PETITIONER Ram Pyare Patel
Versus
RESPONDENTS The State ofM.P. and others
W.P.(S) No.3460/2005
PETITIONERS Khemraj Rajak and others
Verstfs
RESPONDENTS The State of M.P. and others
W.P.(S) No.2592/2005
PETITIONER Balbhadra Sahu
yersus
RESPONDENTS The State of M.P. and others
W.P.ISl No.2610/2005
PETITIONER Deocharan
Versus
RESPONDENTS State and others
W.P.ISlNo.2611/2005
PETITIONER Niazaz Uddin
Versus
RESPONDENTS State and others
\
2-
W.P.(S) No.2579/2005
PETITIONER Rekhraj Sahu
Versus
RESPON-BENTS
State and othery
Appearance :
Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava and Mr. Anand Shukla, Counsel for the respective petitioners.
Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER
(05.12.2013)
Heard.
(2) The decision rendered in W.P(5)No.2601/2005 shall ;overn disposal of other connected petition i.e. W.P. (S) Nos.3460/2005, 2592/2005, 2610/2005, 2611/2005 SB 2579/2005, because, common issues and facts are ihvolved in all these writ petitions.
(3) By way of these petitions, the petitioners, who are daily wagers, working under the Water Resources Department are claiming same wages/payment, which is being paid to the regular employees.
.(4) Ceamed counsel for the petitioners, by referring to Section 16 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as amended by MP 23 of 1961.(in short "the Act"), would submit that
^
the petitioners' nature of work is similar to those employees whose appointments are regular against permanent postsandtherefore,they are also entitled for the sarae salary.
(5) Ori th6 other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State, would submit that the petitions are not maintainable as' the petitioners have remedy of raising dispute before the!Labour Court. It was further contended that the petitioners, who are employed on daily wages, cannot be ta-eated as on a par with the persons in regular service of fhe State and hence, the petitions deserve rejection. ;
(6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
(7)
Section 16 of the Act reads as under :
(8) As per Section 16 of the Act, where an employee does two or more classes of work to each of which a
/,
different minimura rate of wagete is applicable, the eraployer shall pay to such employee wages at the highest of the rates prescribed for suchj ' class. It no where il : . .. . prescribesequal payforequalworkandtherefore,the s reliance upon thte above provision is totally misplaced.
(9) Moreover,;: there is. nothing on record showing prerequisite forj appointment of daily wagers and for regular employment. The petitioners who were employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular, seryice holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are ndt required to possess the qualifications prescribedforregularworkers,nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not sislected in the maraner in wliich ^regular employees are selected. In other words, the requireraents for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisionsrelatingtoregularservice such as the liability of a member ofthb service to be transferred, and his being subject to the di'sciplinary jurisdictian of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmeii for the purposes of their wages. Nor can they claim the niinimuni of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed (Please see State of Haryana and_
others vs. JdStner Singh and others {Case
No.14223/1996 with C.A. Nos. 14224-14362/1996 decided on November 7, 1996]), and so also the petitioners'clainaismisconceived.
(10) In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the petitionershave::nolegalrighttoclaini parityin paywith the regular employees.
(11) Por the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits; a.re liable to be and are hereby dismissed.
(12) The original order be kept in!fhe records of W.P.(S) )*<o.2601/2005 and the photocopies pf the same be kept in the records of other connected petition. No order as to cost(s). : 1Sd/-
1Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge
shyna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether daily wager employees are entitled to the same wages as regular employees holding similar posts under the Water Resources Department.
Whether Section 16 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 entitles daily workers to parity with regular service wages.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Jatinder Singh and othersExplained¶72
State of Haryana and others vs. Jatinder Singh and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Pyare Patel and others
The State of M.P.
N.K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
