MARATHWADA SARVASHRAMIK SANGATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S. K. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner Union claims the Department of Social Forestry, Government of Maharashtra has been engaging daily rated workers in its plantation farms as well as under various schemes and they are being paid on daily wage basis. It is further contended that the Social Forestry is a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the daily rated employees are entitled for the payment of minimum wages as prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra. It is further averred that these daily rated employees were being paid an amount of Rs. 41. 20 ps. per day till 13-11-1997 and thereafter the daily rate of wages has been reduced to Rs. 23/- per day. The petitioner Union therefore has approached this Court seeking directions against the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Social Forestry to pay wages at the rate fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(2.) ON the preliminary point of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 329 of 1992 along with other batch of petitions. The Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated 9-4-1992, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Assam and others v. Kanakchandra Dutta), A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 884 and (Jagdev Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others), 1988 Lab. I. C. 1088, held that the casual employees appointed on daily wages in a Government Department do not hold a civil post and hence, they have no remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(3.) IN the case of (Union of India and others v. Deep Chand Pande and another), A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 382, the question which fell for decision of the Supreme Court was whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of the respondents who were engaged in the Office of Deputy Civil Engineer (Construction), Central Railway, Gwalior as casual typists on daily wages and whether their services were wrongly terminated and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could entertain the claim of the respondents, who were before termination of their employment, engaged as casual servants of the Union of India. The Supreme Court held that remedy of the respondents employees was before the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act and not High Court. It was specifically ruled further that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents who were appointed as casual servants. Subsequently, in the case of (Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla and others v. Tirath Raj and others), A. I. R. 1996 S. C. 615, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of employees appointed on daily wages and a specific question came up for considerations whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of such daily rated employees for the payment of equal pay for equal work. In para 4 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed as under :. The only question that remains for decision is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the daily wages employees working under the appellant. The High Court took the view that since the daily wage employees are not appointed to a post, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) is not applicable. This controversy is no longer res integra. In Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey, A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 382, the same contention was raised with regard to the casual typists working under the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway, Gwalior. They contended that under section 14 of the Act, all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all the courts excepting the Supreme Court have been vested in the Central Administrative Tribunals. Therefore, it was contended for the Union that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the casual typists on daily wage basis. It was contended on behalf of the daily wage typists that since they were not holding any civil post under the Union and were engaged only on casual basis, the provisions of the Act were not attracted. This Court negatived the contention and held thus (Para 5 ). The scope of Article 323-A permitting the Parliament to legislate on the subject covered therein is, having regard to the language, very wide, and by enacting 1985 Act this power has been exercised in almost full measure. An examination of section 14 and section 3 (q) clearly indicates that the Act covers a very wide field, and there is nothing to suggest that the provisions dealing with the jurisdiction of the tribunal should receive a narrow interpretation. This is also supported by the clarification offered by the then Minister of Law, who was piloting the Bill, while replying to the demand for further enumeration of the conditions of service in section 15 and 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had been divested of the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is vested in the Administrative Tribunal constituted in that behalf under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.