Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Workmen By Delhi Prashasan Vikas ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 333 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. The petitioner is the Horticulture Department of Government of NCT of Delhi. The claim was raised by the muster roll employees of the petitioner i.e. respondent/union for the minimum pay scale paid to regular employees. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Niader and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 9609-10/1988, the Tribunal held in favor of the respondents by granting them the minimum of the respective scale till their regular absorption.

2. This writ petition challenges the award dated 1st February, 2003 wherein by referring to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Niader and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 9609-10/1988, the following order was passed:-

"In Niader and Another case the concerned petitioners were directed to be regularised and the employer was also directed to absorb them and also pay the wages to them till they are absorbed on the minimum of the respective pay scale. If the facts & circumstances are considered, the case of the present workmen is not on better footing. Therefore, the workmen are only entitled to the wages as paid to the regular employees at the minimum of their pay-scale as the workmen had not acquired the regular status during the muster-roll period. The regular Pay-scale with usual allowances and other usual benefits is only applicable after their regularisation, including increments. Accordingly, it is held that the workmen are entitled to the wages at par with the regular counterparts, only at the minimum of their payscale for muster roll period. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favor of the workmen and against the management.

11. In view of the above findings to the foregoing issue, the claim of the workmen succeeds and the same is allowed. In order to answer the query in the reference, the same is answered in affirmative and held that the workmen, as shown in Annexure-'A' are entitled to the wages as are admissible to the regular counterparts for their respective period of muster-roll employment, at the minimum of the scale. This award is accordingly passed. Appropriate Government be informed."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this direction given by the Industrial Tribunal No. III is not in accordance with the law laid down in Niader's case (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment in Niader's case(supra) reads as follows:-

"Following a number of decisions rendered by this Court on the question of regularisation of casual workers and the need for paying them the minimum salary payable to a regular employee in a comparable post, we issue a direction to the Delhi Administration to prepare a scheme for absorbing the casual labourers, who have worked for one year and more in the Soil Conservation Department as regular employees within six months from today and to absorb all such casual labourers who are found fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employees. Until they are so absorbed the Delhi Administration shall pay w.e.f. 1-10-1988 to each of the casual labourers working in the Soil Conservation Department the salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in a comparable post in the Soil Conservation Department."

(underlining supplied)

4. In so far as this plea is concerned, there is no merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner as it was the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself which granted compensation to the casual labourers of the Soil Conservation Department at the minimum of salary paid to a regular employee in that department and similar relief has been given to the respondents by the Labour Court and thus no fault at all can be found with it.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on minimum scales payable to the casual labourers:-

(a) In Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., where it was held as under:-

"The State cannot deny to casual labourers at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. Such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starving wages."

(b) In Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union (Retd.) v. P.L. Singh and Ors., , it was held as follows:-

"There is no justification for the Corporation extracting the same amount of work from the workmen concerned on payment of daily wages at rates lower than the minimum salary which is being paid to other workmen who have been recruited regularly even though the workmen involved in this case have been working for a number of years."

6. Both the above judgments fully support the stand of the respondent and the Tribunal's award is not only as per the law laid down in Niader's case (supra) but also as per the two judgments of the Supreme Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., and Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union (Retd.) v. P.L. Singh and Ors., .

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors., . This judgment in my view is wholly inapplicable and was in respect of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna which was a special scheme for rural poor below the poverty line which does not apply to the present case where the respondents were working with the petitioner which is a Government Department. Thus there is no merit in this plea of the petitioner too.

8. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly and the interim order dated 13th April, 2004 stand vacated.