Tripura High Court
Shri Sudip Biswas & Ors vs Shri Pradip Kumar Tripathi & Ors on 10 August, 2022
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.78 of 2021
Shri Sudip Biswas & Ors.
............................ Petitioner(s).
Vs
Shri Pradip Kumar Tripathi & Ors.
......................... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asst. S.G.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_R_
10/08/2022
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
The present contempt petition has come to be filed alleging
non-compliance of the direction contained in Para 19(c) of the common
Judgment & Order rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.1162 of 2018 and
connected petition deciding the facts of the case on 9th March, 2021.
For the purpose of convenience, the said direction is quoted
hereunder :
"19(c) Till any of these petitioners are regularized and till those
petitioners who do not qualify for regularization but continue to be
engaged in the same capacity, they shall be paid daily wages at the
minimum scale of pay prescribed for the post in question without
attendant allowances"
A rejoinder-affidavit has come to be filed by the contempt-
petitioner and in particular, stating therein that amongst the various
petitioners whose cases were disposed of by this Hon'ble Court in the
judgment cited hereinabove, one of the petitioners namely, Smt. Sabitri
Podder, has been appointed to a temporary post of Multi Tasking Staff vide
order dated 17.11.2021. The scale of pay to which she has been appointed
was Rs.18,000/- at level 1 (Grade pay Rs.1800/-, Pay Band Rs.5200-20200/-
of 7th CPC) plus allowances sanctioned by the Govt. of India from time to
time.
Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
contempt-petitioners has averred that the respondents have resorted to
subvert the specific direction of this Court by introducing artificial and
extraneous parameters. It is asserted that even if consideration of all other
petitioners for regularization are still pending and even though they continue
to work as Casual Labourers till date, such employees whose employment
are protected by the direction issued by this Court in Para - 19 (c) of the
judgment ought to have been offered the minimum scale of
Rs.18,000/- per month as prescribed for the post.
In support of the submission, learned Senior Counsel once
again reiterated and placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India rendered in the case of State of Punjab and others Vrs.
Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 and in particular para
58 thereof which may be reproduced as under :
"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the
same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same
duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an
action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of
human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage
does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to
his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his
self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his
dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser
wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly
situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of
a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."
Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Assistant Solicitor General for the
alleged contemnor, on the other hand, has filed a reply-affidavit and
submitted that there has been no violation of the direction of this Court
inasmuch as the contempt-petitioners are being paid daily wages at the
minimum scale of pay prescribed i.e Rs.18000/- per month. Computation of
the payments of wages has been made pursuant to the direction of this Court
copy of which has been annexed alongwith the reply-affidavit (Annexure -
R/10). Therefore, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that there
is no foundation of the allegation of non-compliance of this Court's
direction. On perusal of Annexure - R/10 it is clear that the employer has
first of all accepted the minimum scale of pay i.e. Rs.18,000/- per month and
once again re-computed the amount payable to the contempt petitioner(s) on
the basis of the daily wages to which they are entitled to. Accordingly, he
submits that there is no violation of the direction of this Court.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the contempt-petitioners,
on the other hand, sought to rely upon various other judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in order to state that the contempt
petitioners are entitled to Rs.18,000/- per month (without allowances). If
such a proposition, as advanced, is accepted then the term 'Daily Wages'
will lose its entire meaning. In other words we are of the considered view
that the direction contained in Para 19 (c) in particular in specific term was
for payment of daily wages at minimum scale of pay prescribed for the post
in question without attendant allowances. Therefore, in our earnest view, the
respondents have accepted Rs.18,000/- as the minimum scale of pay for the
position in which the contempt-petitioners/casual workers are discharging
their duties and have computed their daily wages on the basis of the said
scale of pay.
Therefore we find no merit in the contempt petition and the
same stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Munna S
