The State Of Tripura & Ors vs Sri Babul Das & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 428 Tri

                                Page - 1 of 13




                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                              WA No. 35 of 2021
The State of Tripura & Ors.
                                                  ............Appellant(s)
                                Versus
Sri Babul Das & Ors.
                                                  ............Respondent(s)

WA No. 36 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Indrajit Sarkar & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 37 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Haradhan Kar & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 39 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Parimal Malakar & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 40 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Babul Chowdhury & Ors.

............Respondent(s) Page - 2 of 13

WA No. 42 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Uttam Das & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 43 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Khokan Sukla Das & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 44 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Tarini Sarkar & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 45 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Gopal Sutradhar & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 51 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Tapan Roy & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 52 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Kushal Singha & Ors.

............Respondent(s) Page - 3 of 13

WA No. 54 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Litan Som & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 55 of 2021 The State of Tripura & Ors.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Maran Ch. Das & Ors.

............Respondent(s) WA No. 49 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Indrajit Sarkar ............Respondent(s) WA No. 53 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Babul Das ............Respondent(s) WA No. 57 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Haradhan Kar ............Respondent(s) WA No. 58 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Maran Chandra Das ............Respondent(s) Page - 4 of 13

WA No. 63 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Gopal Sutradhar ............Respondent(s) WA No. 64 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Babul Chowdhury ............Respondent(s) WA No. 65 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Parimal Malakar ............Respondent(s) WA No. 66 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Khokan Sukla Das .........Respondent(s) WA No. 68 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Kushal Singha .........Respondent(s) WA No. 69 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Tapan Roy .........Respondent(s) Page - 5 of 13

WA No. 70 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Uttam Das .........Respondent(s) WA No. 72 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Tarini Sarkar .........Respondent(s) WA No. 73 of 2021 Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr.

............Appellant(s) Versus Sri Litan Som .........Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Senior Government Advocate.

Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate. Mr. K. De, Additional Government Advocate. Mr. D. Debbarma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.

HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 30/03/2021

All these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 18.12.2019 in case of Sri Gopal Sutradhar Vs. The State of

Tripura & Ors. in W.P (C) No. 194 of 2018 and connected petitions.

                                   Page - 6 of 13




[2]          Brief facts are as under:

The original petitioners, the private respondents in these appeals,

have been working as labourers in spinning department of Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.

since several years and in most cases since October, 1999. They carried a

nomenclature "Badli workers". However their case is that they have been given

proper training for working in the spinning department and they are continuously

engaged on every working day by Tripura Jute Mills since inception. However

they are neither granted regular pay scales available to regular workers of the Jute

Mills, nor granted other service benefits. They are instead paid fixed monthly

wages which have been revised from time to time and lastly at the time of filing of

the petitions they were paid consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. They

therefore filed individual petitions before the High Court and prayed for

regularization in service and salary at the rate of scales provided to Grade-I

workers employed by the Jute Mills.

[3] The State government as well as Tripura Jute Mills opposed their

petitions and took the stand that there is no rule or scheme for regularizing such

Badli workers. Their wage structure is fixed by the employer on the basis of its

capacity to pay wages and lastly such wages were increased to Rs.15,000/- per

month. The respondents did not dispute the assertion of the petitioners that before Page - 7 of 13

their engagement they were asked to undergo a training of 90 days. It was however

contended that such training would not entitle them to any right of regularization.

[4] The learned Single Judge allowed the petitions in part. So far as the

petitioners' request for regularization is concerned, the learned Judge merely asked

the respondents to consider the same. However with respect to the petitioners'

claim for equal wages positive directions were issued. Operative portion of the

judgment reads as under:

"9. The main shaft of principle of equal pay for equal work is to discharge the similar duties and responsibilities in the equal working hour. Hence, the meaning of „post‟ will receive interpretation to coax the said modus. Hence, in the context of these cases, the petitioners may file a representation to the respondents through the respondent No.5 for taking a policy decision in respect of their regularization within a reasonable time. On such representation being made by the petitioners, the respondents shall take the relevant consideration whether or not a scheme can be laid for absorption/regularization of the petitioners. But in terms of Jagjit Singh (supra) the petitioners‟ wages shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale in the lowest grade of the regular workers of the Spinning Department inasmuch as the respondents did not dispute the claim of the petitioners that they are discharging duties and responsibilities of the regular workers full time. Such wage shall be given from 01.01.2020. This direction is given having considered the assertion of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the Tripura Jute Mils Ltd. that Tripura Jute Mils Ltd. is not in a good financial situation. It is made absolutely clear that the petitioners cannot be deprived from their rightful and due wage as declared by the apex court in Jagjit Singh (supra).

Page - 8 of 13

[5] This judgment has given rise to two sets of appeals. Writ Appeal

No.35/2021 and connected appeals are filed by the State Government. Writ Appeal

No.49/2021 and connected appeals are filed by Tripura Jute Mills. Appearing for

the Government counsel Sri Dhar submitted that the original petitioners were

engaged as Badli workers. In absence of any regularization scheme framed by the

Jute Mills and approved by the Government their services cannot be regularized.

They also cannot claim wages at par with other regular employees of the Tripura

Jute Mills. The financial condition of the Jute Mills is not very sound and cannot

bear the additional burden of higher salaries. Sri Bhattacharjee appeared for the

Tripura Jute Mills and reiterated the submissions made by the Government

counsel.

[6] We have heard shri Lodh for the original petitioners who opposed the

appeals.

[7] At the outset it may be recalled that the learned Single Judge has not

given any directions for regularization of any of the petitioners. Merely

observations are made and the issue is then left to the Jute Mills and the State

Government and their discretion. In absence of any directions for regularization of

all the petitioners, we do not see how these observations can aggrieve the

appellants.

Page - 9 of 13

[8] The central controversy in these appeals is of course with respect to

the direction for payment of wages at par with the regular workers at the minimum

pay scale. Before we proceed further let us recollect the relevant facts. Firstly all

the petitioners are being engaged in the name of Badli workers but continuously

and constantly since over 20 years by now. Secondly they were given special

training of three months before their initial engagements. Thirdly the learned

Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of

Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. Lastly the

learned Single Judge has given directions for payment of wages at the minimum of

the scale granted to regular workers with matching allowances and provided that

the same would be available from 01.01.2020, thereby reducing the burden of past

wages on the Jute Mills.

[9] For multiple reasons we see no reason to deviate from the directions

issued by the learned Single Judge. The concept of Badli workers is well known

and well entrenched in the industries which rely heavily on labour force. In such

labour intensive industries, the employer cannot afford to keep on permanent

establishment workers more than the sanctioned strength. The sanctioned strength

would ordinarily take into account the work load and also provide for a weekly off

for the workers on regular basis. However over and above such weekly off, due to Page - 10 of 13

variety of reasons certain number of workers may not report for duty on a given

day. This can be on account of illness, family commitments or social

responsibilities. To fill the gap due to such leave reported by the regular staff, all

industries and organizations which have requirement of high number of labourers,

maintain a muster of workers to be engaged on seniority basis on the number of

days where the regular staff does not report. These workers are therefore called

Badli workers. Their engagement is purely temporary on daily basis. The

organization assures no work beyond whenever the need arises. They are paid only

for the number of days they work.

[10] In the present case however the situations is vastly different. When it

is pointed out then almost from the beginning as many as 14 (fourteen) petitioners

were engaged perennially for over two decades, the very concept of Badli workers

must be seem to have failed. The State or its instrumentality, cannot use such

nomenclature which as observed earlier, in this case is a misnomer to deny parity

in wages to the workers concerned. When it is found that they have the same

training and other ability in doing the work as efficiently and effectively as regular

staff, they are assigned the same duties and responsibilities they have been

engaged on regular basis on almost every single working day for over 20 years,

they cannot be denied the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work by

showing them their birth mark and branding them as mere Badli workers.

Page - 11 of 13

[11] The Supreme Court in case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) has made

following observations:

"60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work", in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a Page - 12 of 13

par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post.

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post."

[12] The learned Single Judge has also referred to and relied on these

observations in order to give the ultimate directions.

[13] Before closing we may record that learned counsel for the original

petitioners had brought to our notice a memorandum dated 26.03.2021 issued by

the Tripura Jute Mills granting the benefit of initial basic pay of Rs.16,000/- per

month to all the petitioners with admissible allowances w.e.f. 01.01.2020. On the

basis of this document he had contended that even the Jute Mills and Government

have accepted the decision of the learned Single Judge and therefore they now

cannot peruse the appeals on merits. However we notice that both sets of appeals

were filed by the State Government and Tripura Jute Mills on or around 4th & 5th

February, 2021 i.e. before issuance of the said memorandum and in the meantime

the original petitioners had filed contempt petitions before the learned Single

Judge. If therefore in order to avoid further coercive action the authorities had

issued the said memorandum, merely because there was no recitation in this Page - 13 of 13

memorandum that the benefits are being given subject to outcome of the writ

appeals would not preclude them from pressing the appeals on merits.

[14] Before closing we may observe that this judgment is rendered in

special facts of the case and should not be seen as a decision recognizing the right

of a Badli worker to seek parity in wages with regular employees irrespective of

length of service and other relevant facts discussed in this case. Subject to these

observations, appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands

disposed of.

(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY),J (AKIL KURESHI ),CJ

Rudradeep