RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute that Petitioners in this case have been engaged on daily rate basis for performing Class IV duties. They have not been engaged through Employment Exchange, but in fact are performing same and similar duties, which are being performed by the other daily rated Class IV employees deployed through Employment Exchange after getting approval from the Finance Department. Petitioners, are being discriminated against in the matter of payment of wages for the work performed by them. They are being presently paid their wages at the rate of Rs. 22 per day. but the other daily rated workmen engaged by the Respondents for performing Class IV duties, who have been engaged through Employment Exchange after sanction of the Finance Department are being paid their wages at the rate of Rs. 42.40 paise per day effective" from 1st June, 1992. For redressal of their grievance, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for striking the action of Respondents treating the two set of daily rated employees differently in the matter of payment of wages, though performing same and similar duties but on the ground of the source and manner of their engagement.

(2.) THE case of the Respondents in treating differently the two set of daily rated employees in the matter of payment of wages is that the persons, who have been engaged on daily wages through Employment Exchange and against the posts sanctioned by the Finance Department are to be given the enhanced wages and not the one who have neither been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, nor engaged against the sanctioned posts though they may be performing same and similar duties and discharging same and similar functions.

(3.) THE stand of Board in paying to the two set of their daily rated workmen the wages differently was same and similar as in the instant case, namely, that the daily rated T -Mates though performing same and similar duties as daily rated Clerks had neither been deployed through Employment Exchanges, nor against any sanctioned posts, whereas the daily rated Clerks had been so engaged. This discrimination was held to be arbitrary and the ground of discrimination was held to be having no relation in the matter of payment of wages. The Court held: The Court finds that neither the Central Government nor the State Government makes any distinction in the rates of wages payable to the daily -rated employees performing the same duties, while fixing the minimum rates of wages, on the basis of the source or method of recruitment. In other words, all daily -rated employees performing identical duties in respect of whom minimum rates of wages are fixed are entitled to such wages irrespective of whether the employees have been recruited through the Employment Exchange or otherwise, or whether their employment is made after completing the codal formalities or otherwise. Against the aforesaid background, the Court is unable to discern the rationality of the distinction made in the matter of payment of wages on the basis of the source/method of recruitment, especially when the Board has conceded the claim of the applicants, who are employed as T -Mates on daily wages but who are performing the duties of Clerks, to the payment of minimum wages of daily -rated Clerks as notified by the Respondent -Pored from time to time.