M M MERCY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PART-time employees are expected to render part-time service in Government offices. But many of them have been on the corridors of this Court as full time litigants for quite sometime. Despite several rounds of litigation they are denied at least part-time peace in service.

(2.) EQUAL pay for equal work is one of the social and economic goals enshrined in the Constitution of India Article 39 mandates that the State should avoid discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. It is a constitutional obligation of the State. As the supreme Court observed the constitutional philosophy must be allowed to become a part of every man in this country: than only would the Constitution reach everyone and he or she would be nearer the goals set by it. (Dharward P. W. D. Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 ). In the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Daily Rates Casual Labour v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 122, the apex court considered the plight of the employees in the lowest rungs of the service. It was held therein as follows: "the State cannot deny at lest the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. Such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. But he does so because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer". There are several decisions of the Supreme Court and this court on this principle. It is not necessary to refer to them in extenso since it is the very same principle which is emphasized in the decisions. The question raised in these writ petitions can be analysed only in the light of the guidance on the constitutional philosophy, as interpreted by the Supreme court and this court.

(3.) APPARENTLY there were yet a category who were not covered by the 100 Sq. ms. and above sweeping area and therefore yet another order was issued as G. O. (P)No. 3002/98/fin. Dated 25-11-1998, which reads as follows:- "government are pleased to enhance the wages of casual Sweepers from Rs. 100 p. m. to Rs. 600 p. m. with effect from 1-11-1998". Despite all these orders it appears quite a few Part-time sweepers had to approach this court several times, on being threatened of termination, on being denied their due wages and on several other grievances. Inspite of the mandate under Part IV of the Constitution of India, the State has not given any serious thought on the service conditions of these low paid employees who do not have the might to have an organizational set up and put pressure on the Government. Consequently they have always been marginalized. APPARENTLY they were always at the mercy of either the Controlling Officers or the Government obviously because they were not regulated by specific service conditions. Now, the petitioners are either denied work and if engaged they are paid only Rs. 600/- stating that they are only causal sweepers.