The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a part-time safai worker and seeking minimum wages. The Court held these were factual questions for the appropriate forum under the Payment of Wages Act.
The writ petition and stay applications were dismissed.
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.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8458/ 2014 Shaitan Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8458/ 2014
Shaitan Singh Verma-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.-Respondents
Date of Order-: : -09.12.2014
Hon ' ble Ms. Ju st ice Bela M. Tr iv edi
Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, for respondents.
ORDER
By t h e Cou r t :-
2 . The petitioner in the present petition has challenged the
order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the respondents and sought to set-aside the same, and further seeking direction to pay the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government. 3 . It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as safai worker on part time basis, at the fixed wages @ Rs.700/ 900/ - per month. According to him, though the petitioner was required to work from 07: 00 a.m. to 09: 00 a.m. and 05: 00 p.m. to 06: 00 p.m., the respondent No.3 was taking work from the petitioner from 10: 00 a.m. to 05: 00 p.m., and therefore the petitioner had earlier filed the petition seeking minimum wages as prescribed by the Government. Mr. Saxena, also submitted that since the petitioner submitted the representation pursuant to the order passed by
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8458/ 2014 Shaitan Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2
this Court vide the order dated 07.04.2014, his services have been terminated vide the order dated 09.05.2014 in illegal manner, and therefore the present petition has been filed.
4 . The learned Govt. Counsel Dr. A.S. Khangarot for the respondents placing reliance on the reply filed by the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed as part time 'safai-worker' and his work having not been found satisfactory, his services were terminated. He also submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum for redressing his grievances against termination and for getting minimum wages, and therefore the petition is not maintainable.
5 . Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on part time basis from 07: 00 a.m. to 09: 00 a.m. and 05: 00 p.m. to 06: 00 p.m. i.e. for three hours in a day on the payment of Rs.700/ 900per month as per the Annexure-R/ 2 and R/ 3. As such he was not appointed on the regular post or after following the due procedure. Though, it is alleged that the respondent No.3 was taking work from him from 10: 00 a.m. to 05: 00 p.m., the petitioner has not placed on record any document to substantiate the said allegation. As rightly submitted by the learned Govt. Counsel for the respondents that whether the
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8458/ 2014 Shaitan Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3
petitioner is paid the minimum wages or not, and whether his services were satisfactory or not would be disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate authority under the Payment of Wages Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the preset petition. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid
of merits, deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.
6 . By this order, the stay application and other pending applications if any, also stand dismissed.
( Bela M. Tr ivedi) J. R.Vaishnav 86.
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Ramesh Vaishnav-Personal Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can entertain a petition regarding termination of part-time employment and minimum wages when alternative remedies exist under the Payment of Wages Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shaitan Singh Verma
State of Rajasthan
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
