Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjan vs Jvvnl Jodhpur And Anr on 17 November, 2022
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
(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 (Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM) (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.
(Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM) (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.
(Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 18/11/2022 at 09:04:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)