Khilawan Prasad Verma v. VERSU

1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.rS)No. 2582 of 2005 PETITIONERS Khilawan Prasad Verma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of MP (Now CG) & others W. P.fS)No. 2583 of 2005 f- PETITIONERS : Tukaram Patel VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Stateof MP (Now CG) & others W.P.fSlNo. 2587 of 2005 PETITIONERS : Raiwati Raman Panda VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of MP (Now CG) & others W.P.(S)No. 2596 of 2005 PETITIONERS : Roopanand VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of MP (Now CG) & others (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) : Present Shri Prateek Sharma and Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the respective petitioners Shri SP Kale, Deputy Advocate General with Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ; ORAL ORDER (Passedon 19.12.2013) Heard.

The decision rendered in W.P.(S) No.2582/2005 shall govern disposal of other connected petition i.e. W.P. (S) Nos.2583/2005, T ^^K"' •& i^E^ 2587/2005 and 2596/2005 because, common issues and facts are involved in all these writ petitions.

By way of these petitions, the petitioners, who are daily wagers, working under the N.H. P.W.D. & Water Resources Department, are claiming same wages/payment, which is being paid to the regular ,A »- employees.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to Section 16 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as amended by MP 23 of 1961 (in short "the Act"), would submit that the petitioners' nature of work is similar to those employees whose appointments are regular against permanent posts and therefore, they are also entitled for the same salary.

On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Dy. Advocate General for Ks the State, would submit that the petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have remedy of raising dispute before the Labour Court. It was further, contended that the petitioners, who are employed on daily wages, cannot be treated as on a parwith the persons inregular service of the State and hence, the petitions deserve rejection.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

Section 16 of the Act reads as under : "16. Wages for two or more classes of work- Where an employee does two or more ctasses of work to each of which a different minimum rate of wages is applicable, the employer shall pay to such employee wages at the highest of the rates prescribed for such class. "

As per Section 16 ofthe Act, where an employee does two or more classes of work to each of which a different minimum rate of wages is ^\ applicable, the employer shall pay to such employee wages at the highest ofthe rates prescribed forsuch dass. It no where prescribes equal pay for equal work and therefore, the reliance upon the above provision is totally misplaced. -^-

Moreover, there is nothing on record showing prerequisite for appointment of daily wagers and for regular employment. The petitioners who were employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words, the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes of their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed (Please see S(ate of Harvana and others vs. Jasmer Sinah and others {Case No.14223/1996 with C.A. Nos.14224- 14362/1996 decided on November 7, 1996}), and so also the petitioners' claim is misconceived.

In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have no legal right to claim parity in pay with the regular employees.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. : -'"y^^^SS^^SS'-.feS^^^. 'S^S^^^^^S^^^^^^'^ ^ • • -"^.. ^~^^ '^ -j'2-

The original order be kept in the record of W.P.(S) No.2582/2005 and the photocopies of the same be kept in the records of other connected petition. No order as to cost(s). N.K.Agrawai Judge