MADAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus or direction upon the respondents to pay him minimum wages and admissible allowances from the date of his initial appointment.

(2.) The petitioner, in reply thereto, produced all papers by way of a representation dated 28.10.1993, however, it is stated that the Assistant Labour Commissioner did not pass any order thereon. Having no option left, the petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. While entertaining this writ petition, no interim protection was granted to the petitioner and he is waiting patiently for the last seventeen years.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The stand taken therein is that the appointment of the petitioner was on casual basis. In the counter-affidavit, it has not been denied that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Chotey Lal. It has also not been denied that he is working regularly as a waterman and discharging his duties as such. No reason has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit as to why the petitioner has not been paid minimum wages fixed by the State Government.