Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Thr. Its Commissioner ... vs Raj Bala And Another on 16 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
LPA No. 137 of 2018 (O&M) -1-
212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 137 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.10.2024
State of Haryana through its Commissioner
and Secretary to Government,
Department of Women & Child Development,
Haryana and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Raj Bala and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate
or respondent No.1.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Brief facts and Introduction:-
1.1 Through this intra Court appeal, State of Haryana assails the
correctness of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, which in turn has
affirmed the Labour Court's award ordering reinstatement of the respondent
with continuity of service and 25% backwages.
1.2 The only issue debated before this Court is as to whether
Anganwari Worker falls within the definition of 'workman' as defined in
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the honorarium paid to
her falls within the definition of 'wages' under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act').
2. Submissions Put forth:-
2.1 Learned State counsel heavily relies upon the judgment passed by
Gujrat High Court in 'Child Development Officer & other vs. Priyankaben
Kiralkumar Sheth', to contend that Anganwari Worker or Helper does not
fall within the definition of workman because the honorarium paid to her does
not amount to wages.
2.2 Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents has
relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court (Nagpur
Bench) in 'Vidya Vishnu Vanare vs. State of Maharashtra', 2011(3)
Service Cases Today 500.
3. Analysis and Discussion:-
3.1 In these circumstances, though the facts are not relevant, however,
to complete narration relevant facts are noticed. The dispute raised by the
respondent was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union
Territory, Chandigarh, on a reference made by Chandigarh Administration. It is
her case that she joined the service as Anganwari Worker on 10.06.1994 and
had unblemished record of service. However, the Management terminated her
services on 31.03.2008, while passing a stigmatic order on the basis of enquiry
conducted at her back, neither any charge-sheet was issued nor any Enquiry
Officer was appointed, which was communicated vide letter dated 02.04.2008.
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
The Labour Court by an elaborate award passed on 20.03.2015 answered the
reference in favour of the workman. She was held entitled to reinstatement
with continuity of services and 25% backwages. The correctness of the award
passed by the Labour Court was challenged in a writ petition by State of
Haryana, which was dismissed on 10.11.2017 on the ground that the reference
stated 16.02.2009 has never been questioned by the Employer (State of
Haryana).
3.2 This Bench proceeds to adjudicate the dispute.
3.3 Sections 2(j), (rr) and (s) of the ID Act defined words 'industry,
wages and workman respectively', which are extracted as under:-
"Section 2(j): industry "means any business,
trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers
and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or
industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
Section 2(rr): "wages" means all remuneration
capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would,
if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were
fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his
employment, or of work done in such employment, and
includes [Inserted by Act 43 of 1953, Section 2 (w.e.f.
24.10.1953).] [but does not include-(a)any bonus;(b)any
contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension
fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman
under any law for the time being in force;(c)any gratuity
payable on the termination of his service;]
Section 2(s):"workman" means any person
(including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or implied, and for the
purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or
as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does
not include any such person-[Substituted by Act 46 of 1982,
Section 2, for Cl. (s) (w.e.f. 21.8.1984).](i)who is subject to
the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950
(46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or(ii)who
is employed in the police service or as an officer or other
employee of a prison, or(iii)who is employed mainly in a
managerial or administrative capacity, or(iv)who, being
employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding
[ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by
the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of
the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.]"
3.4. The word 'industry' has been elaborately explained by Seven
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment passed in
'Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A Rajappa and others',
1978(2) SCC 215. While relying upon the judgment passed in 'State of
Bombay and others vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others', AIR
1960 Supreme Court 610, the Court explained that wherever there is
systematic activity, in which, there is cooperation between employer and
employee, there is industry.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
3.5 The Anganwari Workers/Helpers are engaged under The
Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, which was launched in the
year 1975 with the objectives to improve the nutritional and health status of
children, lay the foundation of proper physiological, physical and social
development of child; to reduce the incidence of mortality, morbidity,
malnutrition and school dropouts; to enhance the capability of mother to look
after normal health and nutritional needs of the child and other related services.
The Anganwari Workers/Helpers are paid fixed amount on monthly basis,
which is called honorarium. Hence, the significant question is whether the
honorarium paid would fall within the definition of wages as defined in Section
2(rr) of the ID Act. It is evident that the definition of word 'wages' is very wide
and extensive. The statute has used the expression 'wages' which means 'all
remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money'. Thereafter, it has
been defined that the word 'wages' includes four categories, namely, such
allowances including dearness allowance, value of house accommodation,
supply of light and water or medical attendance, any travelling concession and
any commission payable on promotion of sales or business or both. Thereafter,
there are three kinds of payment which have been excluded including bonus
contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident
fund or gratuity payable on termination of his service. Thus, the definition of
'wages' includes 'all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of
money'.
3.6 When compared the definition of 'employee' in Section 2(e) as
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
given in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the word 'workman' in the Act, 1947
are different.
3.7 The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Vidya Vishnu
Vanare's judgment has explained that the Anganwari Workers/Helpers fall
within the definition of 'workman' and the payment made to them falls within
the definition of 'wages'. Para 8 of the judgment extracted as under:-
"Looking to the above functions of these Anganwadi
Sevikas and workers, prescribed by the Government and the
very scheme which is in vogue since 1975 and the activities
under the said scheme, we are of the view that the
Anganwadi Sevikas and Anganwadi helpers and in
particular the present petitioner are 'workman' within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and the scheme under which they are performing their work,
nature of which has already been given by us above is
nothing but an 'industry' within the meaning of definition of
'industry' as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. We have no doubt that ICDS Scheme is systematic
activity in which there is a cooperation between employer
and employee. We also find that the said function under the
ICDS Scheme does not fall within the meaning of the term
'sovereign function' as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others, reported in
1978 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 215.
In the said decision in the case of Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) the case of State of
Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610 :
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
(1960)1 LLJ 251 was considered. We have therefore no
doubt that the petitioner is a 'workman' and the
establishment in which she has been working under
respondent No.2 - Zilla Parishad, namely, ICDS Scheme is
an 'industry."
3.8 In Priyankaben Kiralkumar Sheth's judgment (supra), the
reliance was placed on a Division Bench Judgment in 'Patdi Taluka
Panchayat and others vs. Zebunnisha Nathumiya c/o Jilla engineering &
General Kamdar', 2011 (3) CLR 733. On its careful reading, it is evident
that the Division Bench overlooked the definition of wages in Section 2(rr) of
the ID Act though it noticed the definition under Section 2(k) and 2(s) of the
ID Act. Moreover, the Division Bench erred in relying upon the Judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in 'State of Karnatka Vs. Ameerbi', 2007 (11)
SCC 681, which was in the context of as to whether the Anganwari Workers
are holders of a Civil post or not. There is another Division Bench judgment of
Gujarat High Court in 'Manjulaben Meghjibhai Bagada vs. Bal Vikas
Adhikari and another' 2018(1) CLR 1029, in which reliance has been placed
on Zebunnisha Nathumiya's case (supra). With highest respect, both the
Division Benches of Gujarat High Court have overlooked the definition of
word 'wages' as defined in Section 2(r) of the ID Act. The judgment passed in
Ameerbi's case (supra) was in the different context. Learned representing the
respondent has also drawn the attention of the Court to a recent judgment of the
Supreme Court in 'Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs. District Development
Officer, Dahod', 2022 SCC Online SC 507, decided on 25.04.2022 to
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136074-DB
contend that Anganwari Workers/Helpers have been held entitled to payment
of gratuity. No doubt para 48 holds that the honorarium paid is basically the
quantum money offered/conferred to somebody who is especially a
professional or a well honored person for providing voluntary service. Hence,
the Court held that the honorarium paid to Anganwari Workers does not fall
within the definition of honorarium. However, as already noticed the definition
of 'wages' as well as 'employee' in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is different
from the definition of 'workman' and 'wages' as defined in Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947.
4. Conclusion:-
4.1 This Court respectfully follows the view taken by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court and hold that Anganwari Workers/Helpers
fall within the definition of workman and the honorarium paid to them is wages
for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4.2 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL) (SHEEL NAGU)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
16.10.2024
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
8 of 8
