Delhi High Court
Mangla Prasad vs Telecommunication India Ltd. on 23 February, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioners claimed benefit of home salary and other admissible dues for the period they worked in Kuwait for the respondent No. 1 between 1992 and 1995.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as daily rated casual workers of the first respondent. As per the policies of the Central Government which were applied by the respondent they were granted temporary status which entitled them to wages as daily rated workers with reference to the minimum scales of pay applicable to regular Group-D officials as well as DA, HRA and CCA.
3. The respondent is a company under the control of the Central Government. It required personnel to execute certain projects in Kuwait, and sought for volunteers. Apparently, its regular staff as well as daily wage employees were selected and deployed for working in the project. At the time of deployment, which was termed as deputation, the respondent issued an order (in this case on 4.4.1992 and 10.4.1992).
4. It is the common case of parties that the petitioners had joined the respondent in March 1992 and were asked to report for duties subsequently on 4.4.1992 and 10.4.1992 respectively, at the site in Kuwait. The relevant clauses and provisions contained in the order are identical. They are reproduced below:
Subject: Deputation of staff to Kuwait in connection with execution of TCIL's project there.
The following staff is required to proceed to Kuwait in connection with execution of TCIL's project there on 04-04-1992. The provisional rate of foreign daily allowance payable to them in Kuwait is as below:
S. No. Name and Designation Rate of Foreign daily allowance
S/Shri
1 Mangla Prasad US $ 7 (US $ Seven only)
2 Ramanuj Sharma US $ 7 (US $ Seven only
The provisional rate of daily allowance payable to them in Kuwait is subject to revision by the Company as and when considered necessary. The monthly home salary with the allowances in respect of the officials will be credited to their bank accounts in India as authorised by them. On reaching Kuwait they will report to Shri S.K. Tandon, Regional Director and deposit their passport with him.
Period of deputation
The period of deputation will be one year which may be extended or cultailed as may be considered necessary by the Company.
5. The first petitioner continued to work in Kuwait from 4.4.1992 to 25.12.1995 and the second petitioner worked there between 11.4.1992 and 25.12.1995. Upon their returning to India, they started representing to the respondents that the amounts payable as ``home salary with allowances'' had not been credited to their bank accounts in violation of the condition of the service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon some representations and a legal notice said to have been issued on behalf of the petitioners. He has submitted that the withholding of the amounts is arbitrary and irrational.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon contents of the counter affidavit. The basic defense taken in these proceedings is that the condition of having to credit home salary did not apply to daily rated employees/Mazdoors and that the order issued to the petitioners contained some typing errors. It is also averred that no daily wage employees was paid the home salary. Only daily rated wages were payable, and paid. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the daily rate of U.S. $ 7 as promised was in fact paid to the petitioners. It is also claimed that the legal notice and representations were not received by the respondents.
8. In view of the undisputed facts about the deployment of the petitioners and their entitlement to daily rates at U.S. $ 7 in the place of employment, namely, Kuwait, the only issue which arises for consideration whether the respondents are justifyied in stating that the home salary with the allowance can be denied to the petitioners who were not regular employees.
9. The counter affidavit of the respondents states that the condition of home salary was included by an inadvertence and was not meant to be applicable to daily wages or temporary employees. It has also been averred that the petitioners were informed orally that they would ineligible for drawing the monthly salary. However, significantly enough, there is no circular or letter clarifying this aspect. I was also not shown any material to support the contention that the petitioners were aware that the amounts payable towards monthly home salary would not be credited to their accounts. The mere fact that the petitioners were not regular employees, cannot ipso facto be construed as a bar to their entitlement to whatever the allowances of ``home salary'' on the basis of what they were drawing as per the conditions of service made applicable to them, in their status of temporary employees/daily waged workers. If the Corporation indeed had any intention to exclude such daily rated employees, it should have put it to the petitioners, at the outset or immediately after issuing deployment/deputation order so as to put them on notice and grant them the option of not joining the place of deputation but to continue in India. Not having done it could, the respondent would not later turn around three years later and states that only regular employees were entitled to the benefit.
10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondent in withholding the benefit of monthly home salary payable for the period that the petitioners were working in the Kuwait, as per the terms of their deployment/deputation orders, is arbitrary. A direction is accordingly issued to release the respective amounts payable towards home salary to the petitioners as per their entitlement as daily rated/temporary status employees for the period they were working in Kuwait along with such allowances as were admissible to them. The amounts shall be released to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the period 1.1.1999 till date within a period of three months from today.
11. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
