DELHI ,DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES' UNION . versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 04-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. DELHI ,DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES' UNION A 
v. 
' . 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1992 
~· ,.. ... 
! 
· [P.B. SA WANT AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
B 
~
; 
' 
9Jnstitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 14 19, 21, 41-'Jawahar Roz-
gar Yojna'-Temporary Sclzeme to provide daily wage employment to mral 
. poor and landless labourers during lean periods--Daily wage workers-Right 
to be absorbed as regular employees-Consideration to be taken inta account. C 
.· Rig!Jt to work and livelihood-Whether included in right to life-
Whether reCOg1lised as a ftindamentq/ rigllt. 
Labour Law: Daily wage workers-Recruitment--Regularisatiott-Fac-
tors for consideration. 
D 
· Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Ac~ 
1959. 
. 
Employment Exchange-Registration for employment-Recnlitment 
tlrrough employment exchanges-Necessity for. 
E 
The Government of India, during the Sth and 6th Five Year Plans, 
formulated various schemes, such as "food .for work", "National Rural 
Employment Programme", "Rural Landless Employment Guarantee 
Programme" etc., to provide wage employment to agricultural and hm~less F 
labourers in the country during lean periods. These programmes included 
plantation of trees under social forestry scheme in the rund areas. The 
entire work was done by providing daily .wage employment to rural 
workers .of local areas without reference to any Emplo)ment Exchange, 
, · In the Union Territory or Delhi, the plantation work was monitored G 
by the District Rural. Development Agency (DRDA). Since the work in· 
vol\'ed kno~edge of plantation a~d agricultural practices, some· un-
employed Agricultural Graduates/Diploma-holders, including the 
• Pt!ltioners, approached the DRDA and were given daily wage em~lo)~ent 
under the said · progrnmme: They were called Supenisors/Work Ass is·· H 
565 
'• 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992]1 S.C.R. 
A . taots, and were paid higher daily ~ages compared to those paid to the 
... i 
unskiUed workers. At no stage any regular posts were created under the 
DRDA either for the Supervisors etc. or for the labourers, since th~ 
schemes were financed by the Government of India and the DRDA was 
o~ly the implementing machinery. 
B 
In 1988·90 the Government of India announced a new scheme, called 
"Ja~'Bhar Lal Nehru Rozgar Yojna", for intensive employment in backward 
districts where acute· poverty• and ~nemployment prevailed. Later oo., all 
the Schemes were merged in 'one kiwwn as "Jawahar Rozgar Yojna". Under 
this programme, the monetary assistance received from the Central 
- ~ 
· C Government and the State Government/Union Territories was given 
• 
D 
... 
directly to the village Panchayats ~bich exclusively made the choice or 
work and employed the work-force. 'Tite DRDA ceased, w.e.f. 31.7.1989, to 
be the machinery in these respects and was no longer directly concerned 
with the payment of wages to the workers. 
The petitioners ·filed the writ petitions before this Court for tfie 
difference in wages paid to them and those paid to the regular employees 
as also for their absorption in the Development Department of the Delhi 
Administration and for injunction prohibiting the termination of their 
E services. It was contended that they were employed by and were working 
under the DRDA which was a department either of the Central Govern· 
ment or the Delhi Administration and was not an autonomous body, and 
that the DRDA continues to be the employing agency because the tenu~ 
~f th~ Pradhnns of Village Panchayats under the Union Territory of Delhi 
· expired nod the administration of the Punchaynts was carried on by the 
F Block Devdopment Officers. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court, 
HELD: 1·1· The schemes under which the petitioners were given 
G employment were evolved wlth the limited resources at the disposal of the 
State to provide incom 
~ 
h 
· rt" 
. 
e or t ose rural poor who were below the pon J 
ltn~ an~ particularly during tlte periods when they were without any source 
of hvehhood and, therefore, without any Income whatsoever The object ·was 
not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural p~or-much less 
to the unemployed in • 
. l Tt 
b 
• 
H 
genera· 
•ose employed under the scheme, t ere 
fore, could not ask ror more than whnt the scheme Intended to give them. 
, 
.. 
-- +--
.... _ ·-
EMPLOYEES' UNION v. DELHI ADMN. 
567 
To get an employment under the scheme and claim on the basis of the said A 
emp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.