LexDAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR EMPLOYED UNDER P & T DEPARTMENT THROUGH BHARTIYA DAK TAR MAZDOOR MANCH versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
DAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR EMPLOYED
UNDER P & T DEPARTMENT THROUGH BHARTIYA
.......
OAK TAR MAZDOO!l MANCH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
OCTOBER 27, 1987
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND S. RANGANATHAN JJ.]
·+.
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, 37 and 38(2)-Posts
and Telegraphs Department-Daily rated casual labour-Classification
,_
on basis of number of days of service for payment of wages-Whether
C Constitutional, justifiable and tenable whether opposed to International \
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Non-regularisa- ~
tion of temporary employees or casual labour-Whether a wise policy-
Directions issued for preparation of scheme for absorption of casual
labourers.
D
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
1966: Article 7-Casual labour-Justifiable classification for payment
of wages-Necessity of-Non-regularisation of service-Not wise
policy-Necessity for absorption as permanent workers.
I
E
The petitioners who were working as 'Daily Rated Casual)--
Labour' in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, were categorised as
unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers. By the orders of the D.G.,
Post and Telegraphs Department No. 28-11/77-SR/STM dated 15.S.80
and 10-4/83-R dated 26. 7 .84 they were further classified into (i) thl>se
-
who had not completed 720 days of service; (ii) those who had comp-
F
leted 720 days and not completed 1200 days of service, and (iii) those
who had completed more than 1200 days of service, and were granted '
different rates or wages as laid down therein. Aggrieved by the~
orders, the petitioners submitted a statement of demands through their
federation to the authorities, claiming regularisation, •payment or
interim telief and bonus, supply or dresses, leave and medical facilities
G etc.
Not satisfied with the reply received by them, the petitioners filed
writ petitions, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to th~
Union of India and to direct it to pay them same salary, allowances, and
other benefits as were being paid to regular and permanent employees
H of the Union of India in corresponding cadres and to regularise the
598
MAZDOOR MANCH v. U.0.1.
599
"l"'service of the casual labour who had beeu in continuous service for
A
more than 6 months. Their principal complaint was that even though
many of them had been working for the last ten years as casual labou-
rers, the wages paid to them were very low and far less than the salary
and allowances paid to regular employees of the Posts and Telegraphs
Department belonging to the equivalent categories and, secondly that
no scheme had been prepared by the Union of India to absorb them
B
+- regularly in its service and they had been denied the benefits of incre-
. · ments, pension, leave facilities etc. etc. which were enjoyed by those
who had been recruited regularly.
The petitioners were opposed by the respondents contending that
; since the petitioners belonged to the category of casual labour and were
_} ... not being regularly employed, they were not entitled to the same
privileges which regular employees were enjoying.
-
Disposing of the writ petitions,
HELD: 1.1 The classification of employees in the present case
into casual employees and regularly recruited employees for the
purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in
the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of
the department, where the pay scales are the loyest is not tenable. The
---{ further classification of casual labourers into three categories, namely,
(i) those who have not completed 720 days of service; (ii) those who
have completed 720 days of service and· not completed 1200 days of
service, and (iii) those who have completed more than 1200 days of
service for the purpose of payment of different rates of wages is equally
untenable. There is clearly no justification for doing so. Such a classi-
fication is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also
.........(... opposed. to th~ spirit of Article 7 of the International Covenant on
·
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 which exhorts aD States
.
'
parties to the Covenant to ensure fair wages and equal wages for equal
work. [608E-H]
1.2 The State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the
pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Govern-
ment may not be compeUed to extend all benefits enjoy~ by regu-
>i larly rExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.