SONU Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The petitioner states that he is working as Safai Karamchari for a full working day since 1988 although he has been designated as a part-time worker. My attention has been drawn to the Office Order dated February 5, 1999 which prescribes the duty hours for part-time Safai Karamchari as follows: 1st shift - 7.00 a.m. to 1 p.m. 2nd shift - 12.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Single shift - 7.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is a part-time Safai Karamchari and works for only four hours in a day. This is strenuously opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view it is not open to debate for the simple reason that the abovementioned Office Order stipulates the working hours which are certainly not four hours. On a perusal of the Office Order even though it does not show that there are eight hours of work but in view of Section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 it is always open to the respondents to prescribe working hours as per their choice. If of their own volition they have prescribed duty for less than eight hours, it must be presumed that there is a good and sufficient reason for doing so.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent states that persons up to 724 in the seniority list have been regularised and that the petitioner will also be regularised in the near future since his seniority at 987 is likely to ripen on the next set of regularisation. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, does not press this prayer. The prayers are restricted to the payment of minimum wages. It is the State that prescribes and fixes the minimum wages and it would be travesty of law if they themselves are the violators of standards which they have laid for other parties. The present writ petition is pending since 1998 and although the prayers contained therein states that the petitioner should be paid on the principles of equal pay for equal work, prayer is restricted to the payment/receipt of minimum wages.