Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Accordingly, the company has been paying the workers listed in annexure A to the Civil Application wages @Rs. 2500/- per month as and when work is provided to them. An affidavit has been filed by one Prakash Gomagi Ingole, one of the workers concerned in the Reference. This affidavit has been filed by him on behalf of the other workers as well. He has stated that after the order of August 29, 2006, the company paid him and other workers Rs. 2500/- per month only when they were provided work and on the other days an average of Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1496/- was paid as wages to the workmen. He has averred in this affidavit that he and the other workmen are doing the same work as the permanent workmen and the permanent workmen are being paid a monthly salary ranging between Rs. 6500/- and Rs. 7750/-. In these circumstances, the Union has filed Civil Application No. 1554/2007 claiming the same benefits as the permanent workmen.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the company submits that by the order of August 29, 2006, this Court has already fixed the wages payable to the workmen at Rs. 2500/-p.m. Therefore, nothing more needs to be awarded to them in the Civil Application. He submits that the workers enlisted in Exhibit A to the Civil Application No. 1916/2006 are temporary workmen and such workmen need not be paid the same rates of wages as are payable to the permanent workmen. He then relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj and Ors. in support of his submission that these workmen cannot claim parity and equal pay for equal work with the permanent workmen. According to him, the status of both these workmen is different and the applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work requires complete and wholesale identity between two groups of employees. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. to contend that a workman when employed on a temporary or ad hoc basis cannot claim equal pay for equal work as they were not regularised in service.

10. The question that now remains is whether the workmen would be entitled to the same wages and benefits as are being paid to the permanent workmen after reinstatement. Instead of paying wages under Section 17-B. the employer thought it fit to provide work to the workmen. The contention of the Union is that when such work is provided, the employees must be paid at par with the permanent workmen as the Tribunal has concluded that they are permanent workmen employed for work of a perennial nature. In the case of Contract Laghu Udhog Kamgar Union (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that the expression "same kind of work" will mean that the contract labour would have to be classified and paid on the basis of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers just as the permanent workmen. The Supreme Court has also in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra) held that when it is proved that one set of employees was doing the same work as another set of employees, there must be parity between the wages payable to all the employees. However, in the case of State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (supra), the Supreme Court has said that there must be complete and wholesale identity between the two sets of workmen.
12. In the circumstances, the following order, in my opinion, would meet the ends of justice:
ORDER
i) As the Company has decided to reinstate the workmen instead of paying dues under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen shall be paid wages at par with unskilled permanent workmen or the statutory minimum wages whichever is higher, from the date of this order.
ii) If no work is provided to the workmen by the employer, they shall be paid wages @ Rs. 2,500/- per month.
iii) These wages shall be paid by the employer and accepted by the workmen without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the petition.