Ranjan vs Jvvnl Jodhpur And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 13466 Raj

(1 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4854/2014

Ranjan S/o Late Sh.Kumbha Ram, aged 40 years, Resident of Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur-302005.

2. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.S. Sandhu, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vipul Dharmia with Mr.Udit Mathur, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

Reportable 17/11/2022

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

with the following prayers:-

"1. The respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper/Class-IV Employee under the respondent Company from the date of his appointment.

2. The respondents be directed to make the payment of regular pay scale to the petitioner."

The petitioner in this petition has pleaded that his

father was working on temporary basis with the respondent-

Corporation on the post of Sweeper/Class-IV and after death of his

(2 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

father, he came to be appointed on temporary basis on muster roll

in the year 1999, as a Full Time employee.

The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that initially

he was paid Rs.100/- per month and later on Rs.250/- was paid to

him till the year 2011 and thereafter, the same was revised to

Rs.500/- per month from January, 2012 onwards.

The petitioner has pleaded that he has rendered his

services with full dedication since 1999 and the respondents even

did not pay him the minimum wages, as payable under the

Minimum Wages (Revised) Act.

The petitioner has pleaded that he having worked for

more than 10 years, is also entitled for regularization of service

but no heed was paid to the petitioner by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents are guilty of following unfair labour practice and

services rendered by the petitioner are like doing 'Begar' which is

strictly prohibited by the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been working continuously since 1999 and the

respondents neither considered the petitioner's case for

regularization nor paid him the minimum wages and as such, the

respondents have been taking the undue benefit of the situation

by forcing the petitioner to work and as such, suitable direction is

required to be given to the respondents to regularize the services

of the petitioner and to pay him the regular pay scale.

Learned counsel submitted that even the Apex Court in

the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported

in [(2006)4 SCC Page 1], has held that services of such an

employee, who worked on temporary basis for a considerable

(3 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

period of 10 years, can be regularized as work done by the

petitioner is perennial in nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a

judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of

Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh & Others reported in

[(2017)1 SCC 148].

Learned counsel, on the strength of said judgment,

submitted that the State or its agencies cannot exploit and

enslave the employees and even for a person working on

temporary basis, the employer is under an obligation to at least

grant the minimum pay scale of regular employees to such an

employee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been asked to work from the office of the

respondents and he was continuously attending his duty without

any complaint, the respondents cannot be permitted to exploit the

petitioner and as such, relief claimed by the petitioner is required

to be granted.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

reply to writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel submitted that the stand of the

respondents is that the nature of work performed by the petitioner

is on part time basis and for the same he has been paid

accordingly.

The respondents have pleaded in their reply that since

the petitioner has been working as part time Sweeper just for two

hours daily and after rendering two hours of services with the

respondents, the petitioner is said to be going at other different

places to work.

(4 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

The respondents have pleaded that the minimum

wages is payable to only those employees, who are working on

muster roll on daily wage basis, however, the petitioner did not

work on muster roll or he is not a daily wage employee but is

working as a part time employee.

The respondents have pleaded that the cash book and

vouchers clearly reflected that the petitioner is working as a part

time Sweeper and accordingly, he was paid the amount.

The respondents have pleaded that they have not

issued any appointment letter to the petitioner, which can reveal

that the petitioner has been appointed on daily wages basis or on

the muster roll and as such, the respondents have denied the

claim of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted

that paid bill statement of the petitioner from February, 2004 to

September, 2012 which has been filed as Annexure R/1, clearly

reflects the number of vouchers and the amount paid to the

petitioner.

The respondents have placed on record the other paid

bill statement of the petitioner from October, 2012 to July, 2014,

wherein the petitioner is said to have been paid Rs.500/- per

month.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if

the petitioner has worked only for two hours i.e. cleaning and

sweeping the office premises, the same should not result into

getting regular pay scale or minimum wages under the Payment of

Minimum Wages Act.

Learned counsel further submitted that the reliance

placed by counsel for the petitioner on the case of State of

(5 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) is not attracted in the present

case, as the petitioner is not a temporary employee but he is a

part time employee and as such, directions which have been given

by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case are not applicable.

Learned counsel further submitted that reliance placed

by counsel for the petitioner on the case of State of Punjab Vs.

Jagjit Singh (supra) is also not attracted in the present case.

Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court has granted

minimum pay of pay scale to the employee who has been working

on temporary basis and as the petitioner is not working on

temporary basis in the present case, therefore, he cannot be

granted such benefit.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

This Court finds the following facts to be undisputed :-

(I) The petitioner was engaged after death of his father in

the year 1999 and he has been continuously asked by the

respondents to do the job of cleaning their office.

(II) The services of the petitioner has not been found to be

unsatisfactory.

(III) Initially the petitioner was paid only Rs.100 but later on,

he was paid Rs.500 per month, as per statement of bill, which has

been produced on record.

(IV) The petitioner though has been going to the office of the

respondents for doing the job of cleaning or sweeping their office,

however, the said job is not such a job which is to be performed

by a regularly selected employee of the Corporation and it is the

duty of the petitioner alone to do the job, which is assigned to

him.

(6 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

This Court finds that as far as prayer sought by the

petitioner for regularization is concerned, the same is not tenable.

The petitioner has only been asked to work in the office of the

respondents for a certain duration and as such, his employment in

any manner cannot be termed as regular employment or

employment followed by any element of selection.

This Court accordingly finds that if the petitioner has

been rendering his services since 1999 with the respondents as

part time employee, his entitlement for regularization cannot be

granted by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture,

submitted that if regularization of the petitioner is not feasible at

this stage, at least, direction may be given to the respondents to

consider, the case of the petitioner for regularization as and when,

new scheme is framed by the respondents to deal with the career

of such persons. It goes without saying that, in future, if the

respondents have any scheme of regularizing the services of such

persons, who are engaged as part time employee and eligibility

conditions are laid down, then the petitioner in the event of

fulfillment of such conditions, can always apply and the

respondents can always act thereupon accordingly.

This Court finds substance in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been wrongfully

deprived to get at least the minimum pay in the pay scale of

Class-IV employee, this Court finds that if the petitioner has been

rendering services even if as a part time employee and he comes

to clean the office of the respondents, which is accepted by the

respondents themselves, then the bare minimum survival amount

(7 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

should be given to such an employee and the allegation by the

respondents of working of the petitioner at some other places, is

also not proved by them and it cannot be a ground to deprive the

petitioner to get at least the minimum pay of Class-IV Employee.

This Court finds substance in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have been working

in such a manner, which can be termed as unfair labour practice.

This Court finds that even if some part time employee

is engaged by the State or its agencies, as an employer, then it is

expected from them that no exploitation should take place of the

employee, only because of their miserable and subservient

position.

This Court finds that the petitioner who has been

continuously going to the respondents to discharge his job or

whatever work assigned to him and if he is asked to work for a

longer duration, then also he is prepared to do the job, the

respondents have to pay him at least the minimum pay in the pay

scale of Class-IV employee.

This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of

State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) has laid down the

principle of equal pay for equal work and the same has been made

applicable to temporary employees as well.

This Court is conscious of the fact that the Apex Court

did not deal with the case of part time employees but was dealing

with the cases of temporary employees and accordingly, the Apex

Court held that temporary employees would be entitled to draw

wages at the minimum of the pay scale to regular employee.

This Court at least can take a leaf and can adopt an

analogy that if a person is asked to work for a continuous period

(8 of 8) [CW-4854/2014]

from the last several years and he is asked to work as a part time

employee and as such, there is no denial on the part of employee

to do whatever work assigned to him, then in such an eventuality,

at least minimum pay scale of Class-IV, is required to be given to

such an employee.

This Court accordingly finds that the respondents have

not acted properly while considering the case of the petitioner for

grant of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee.

Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner to get minimum

pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee, is accepted.

The respondents are directed to consider grant of

minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee to the

petitioner from the date of filing of the present writ petition i.e.

03.07.2014 and the arrears of the petitioner will be given to him

within a period of five weeks after receipt of certified copy of this

order.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Himanshu Soni/15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)