Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The applicants are recruited by Board for honorary social services. The amount paid to them as honorarium for rendering social services.

9. In reply to para (4)(a) (b) (c) of the application, I say and submit that The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not applicable to honorary sanchalaks. They are not covered under the scheduled employment of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Part-1. They are not workman or employees as per the definition of workman under the Act. They are honorary and in a matter of honorary appointment, there is no vested right, neither the applicants are employees nor salaried persons. The Honorarium paid to Kendra Sanchalak is not a salary against the work but it is a service to the society and a voluntary payment for the professional services which are offered without charges.

- Board was running Group Insurance Scheme for landless labour;

- Group Insurance Scheme for forest workers;

- Group Insurance Scheme for salt workers;

- Group Insurance Scheme for fishermen;

- Maternity benefit aid to agricultural labour; and

- The Scheme of Pacca Quarters to Salt Pan Workers It is respectfully submitted that all these activities are stopped or diverted to other department such as Health Department Industries Department.

13. In reply to para 4(h) of the application, I say and submit that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not applicable to honorary sanchalaks They are not covered under the scheduled employment of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Part I. They are not workman or employees as per the definition of workman under the Act. They are honorary and in a matter of honorary appointment, there is no vested right neither the applicants are employees nor salaried person. The honorarium paid to Kendra Sanchalak is not a salary against the work but it is a service to the society and a voluntary payment for the professional services which are offered which are offered without charges. 14 to 20 : xxx xxx xxx

10. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Gunvant R. Thakar appearing for respondent No. 2 Board has submitted that no salary has been paid by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners but mere honorarium is being paid by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners for their rendering social and welfare activities of the State Authority. He also submitted that the Minimum Wages Act is also not applicable to the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 is not covered by the Scheduled employment. He however admits two things that the respondent No. 2 is a Public Charitable Trust and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and, therefore, raising contention that the Minimum Wages Act is not applicable to respondent No. 2. He also submits that the grant is available from the State Government and this Public Charitable Trust is receiving Grant in Aid fully from the State Government. As per his submission, Gujarat Welfare Labour Board is statutory board collecting collection from the Workers and employers and respondent No. 2 is receiving full grant in aid from the State Government, meaning thereby, according to him, respondent No. 2 is run by the State Government. It was also clarified by him that respondent No. 2 is not collecting any cess from the employees or employer and it is fully dependent upon 100 per cent grant in aid received by it from the State Government. He has admitted that except Rs. 900.00 in case of Kendra Sanchalaks and Rs. 1300.00 in case of District Sanchalak, there is no other service benefit available to the petitioners. He also admits that no regular scale is available to the petitioners and except this amounts as referred to above, no other benefit is available to the petitioners and the amount which is being paid by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners is not salary but honourarium. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the apex court in case of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Ameeribi which is a case relating to Anganwadi Workers. Except the submissions recorded hereinabove and except the decision as aforesaid, no other submissions were made by learned Advocate Mr. Thakar before this Court and no other decision was cited by him before this Court.

22. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble apex court as well as the Allahabad High Court and the Bombay High Court and considering the hard reality of the factual aspects involved in the matter which are not in much dispute between the parties, petitioners are working since more than ten to fifteen years with the second respondent. Petitioners are working as full time employees and receiving the salary or wages which according to the learned Advocate Mr. Thakar honorarium honorariam, which also amounts to wages. It makes no much difference as honourarium and wages. Before 1997, petitioners were receiving Rs. 500.00 as Kendra Sanchalak and Rs. 1000.00 as District Sanchalak which were, in 1997, were revised to Rs. 900.00 and Rs. 1300.00 respectively for Kendra Sanchalak and District Sanchalak and thereafter, same have not been revised till this date though about ten years have passed. Therefore, they have to work for full time in fixed salary as forced labour though styled as honourary doing social service and not receiving even minimum wages from the respondent State Authority. Schedule employment which is covered by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, unskilled labour at least receives per day wage of Rs. 90.30 and if calculated per month, it would come to more than Rs. 3000.00. These petitioners are educated skilled persons, have passed Matric Examination and some of them are graduate and yet they are not able to get more than Rs. 30.00 per day from State Authority. Expert Committee had already submitted report with recommendation to the State Government to revise the fixed salary but no decision till this date has been taken by the State Government upon the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. Expert Committee's report was submitted in the year 1992 and yet, till this date, final decision from the State Government is awaited. Instead of acting upon the said recommendation of the Expert Committee submitted in the year 1992, some rise was given in the year 1997 as stated earlier as if it was throwing a piece of bread. Looking to the definition of Scommercial establishments as per Section 2(4) as well as under the Bombay Shops and Commercial Establishments, it includes public charitable trust and the societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is admitted by the learned Advocate Mr. GR Thakar appearing for respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 2 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is also a Public Charitable Trust. Therefore, Bombay Shops and Establishments Act is applicable to respondent No. 2 and considering the Entry No. 16 of Part I of the Minimum Wages Act, Schedule Employment, respondent No. 2 is covered by Scheduled Employment. Apart from that, this being a prima facie observations made by this Court, this Court is not examining merits and is also not examining the main issue which has been raised in the petition but these are merely observations made on prima facie consideration based on the pleadings and submissions made by all the learned advocates for the respective parties. The question as to whether the Minimum Wages Act is applicable or not to respondent No. 2 is to be kept open for final hearing but the statutory provisions have been incorporated in the order only for forming prima facie opinion in the matter and considering the question of interim relief which has been prayed for by the petitioner in the present civil applications. As regards the submission of the learned Government Pleader Mr. Shah that if the interim relief is granted, then, it would amount to granting of final relief, considering the final relief sought by the petitioner as referred to above, it is clear that the petitioners are seeking the relief of regular scale and service benefits at par with the Government employees. In the present civil applications, the only relief which the petitioners are seeking as interim relief is that they may be granted some increase in their existing wages so that they may be able to live in the society with human dignity and they may be able to maintain their respective families and to provide better educational opportunities to their children.