CHANCHAL KUMAR TIWARI Vs. SHRI HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These special appeals against a common order dated 1.7.2010 arise out of proceedings in contempt for nonpayment of wages to daily wage workers engaged in the Forest Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The learned Judge, after noting the order passed by this Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal, 1998 1 UPLBEC 313 :, 1998 (1) AWC 236 (NOC), judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21.2.2002 in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal, 2002 2 UPLBEC 1595 :, 2002 (3) AWC 2375 (SC) . and after being prima facie satisfied that there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience/non-compliance on the part of the opposite parties in the proceedings before him, of the directions of this Court, as contained in the judgments in Putti Lal (supra), as modified by the Supreme Court, issued various directions and, at the same time, observed that it would be open to the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of U. P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of U. P. to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the said order and take necessary steps in that regard.

(2.) Before considering the arguments raised, we may gainfully refer to the judgments of this Court in Putti Lal (supra). Two issues arose-- (1) Regularisation/absorption of the employees working in the Forest Department under the Scheme undertaken by the said Department in respect of dally wage/muster roll employees, and (2) minimum payment of wages to such employees. We are not concerned, in the present, with the issue of regularization. We are" only concerned with the issue, as to what is the minimum pay that should be paid to the employees engaged as daily rated labourers/muster roll employees. The learned Judge noted that in Writ Petition No. 15627 of 1988, Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre and Anr. v. State of U.P, decided on 25.2.1993, the Court had issued directions to frame a Scheme for regularisation, and to pay the Petitioner No. 2 therein and other similarly placed employees, the wages at the rates equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres. The learned Judge has further noted that the learned Judge, while allowing the said writ petition, did not confine his judgment to the Petitioners' members only but issued general directions to the Respondents therein for payment of wages/salary and for framing the Scheme for regularization of such employees. We may gainfully reproduce the relevant portion extracted from the judgment of learned Judge, as quoted in paragraph 14 of the judgment of this Court in Putti Lal (supra), which reads as under :

(3.) The learned Bench, then, noted the contentions raised by the Additional Advocate General that the directions given in Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre (supra) should be confined to the members of that Association, and rejected the same for the reasons set out therein, and held that the benefits of the said judgment of the learned Judge have to go to all the daily wagers/muster roll employees. The learned Bench further noted, which is admitted by the Respondents (State), that the pay at the rate, as directed by the learned Judge in the said case, was being paid to those daily wagers, who are members of Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre and, as such, payment is not being made to any other daily wager working in the State, including Kumaun Hills. The Court, then, observed as under :