Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
36.2. The Constitution Bench, having noticed the contentions of the
rival parties, on the subject of wages payable to daily wagers, recorded its
conclusions as under : [Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , SCC p. 43, para 55]
'55.In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes
Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily
wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being
paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with
effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The
objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of
engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in
directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and
allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
government service, with effect from the dates from which they were
respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to
impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the
High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to
22
have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other
benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do
so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the
High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is
being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees
with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction
of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage
earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of
employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in
government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench
of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would
be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our
conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making
such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction
of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for
regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the
aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency
that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the
direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the
State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant
(they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling
those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular
recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and
those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be
allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the
recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for
work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the
extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution to do justice to them.'
36.3. We have extracted the aforesaid paragraph, so as not to
make any inference on our own, but to project the determination rendered
by the Constitution Bench, as was expressed by the Bench. We have no
hesitation in concluding, that the Constitution Bench consciously
distinguished the issue of pay parity, from the issue of
absorption/regularisation in service. It was held that on the issue of pay
parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers
be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of their cadre. The
Constitution Bench expressed the view that the concept of equality would
not be applicable to the issue of absorption/regularisation in service. And
conversely, on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held, that
daily-wage earners should be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest
grade (without any allowances)."