PWD EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since similar questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.

(2.) SCA No. 15819 of 2014 has been preferred by the petitioner PWD Employees' Union through its President and 24 other petitioners, and SCA No.250 of 2015 has also been preferred by the said PWD Employees' Association and three other petitioners, seeking directions against the respondents to ensure that the minimum wages prevalent in the State are paid to the petitioners. They have also sought declaration that the action of the respondents in not paying minimum wages to the petitioners was illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and contrary to Article 39(d) and Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The short facts of SCA No. 15819 of 2014 are that the respondent No.2 Board is a statutory body set up by the Government of Gujarat, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, and works for the development, regulation and control of the drinking water supply in the State. The respondent No.2 Board requires employees for execution of water supply schemes, for which the respondent No.2 engages contractors for the supply of labour. As per the case of the petitioners the petitioner Nos.2 to 25 were appointed on various posts such as Valvemen, Pumpmen, Linemen, Pump Operator and Operator by the contractors for the work of the respondent No.2. Some had put in more than seven years of service. At the time of filing of the petition, the respondent No.4 was the contractor engaged by the respondent No.2 Board. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.2 to 25 were being paid Rs. 3,500/- per month, whereas the minimum wage as prevalent in the State, payable to the workers working in drilling operations and maintenance of tube wells in the year 2014 was approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus, the respondents were making the petitioner Nos.2 to 25 worked for less than the minimum wages. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.2 Board being a model employer is required to see that the petitioners are not being exploited by the contractors and hence, the petition has been filed.