MARATHWADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPITH, M.S.K.S. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 29-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MARA THW ADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
v. 
--4-
MARA THWADA KRISHI VIDY APITH, M.S.K.S. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 2007 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANDS.ff. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947: 
c 
Parity in wages-Casual workers vis-a-vis regular workers-Denial of 
appropriate wages to casual workers-Challenge to-Allowed by High 
Court-On appeal, Held: Question is not of regularization-In order to 
determine wages to be paid to the casual workers, a Committee need to be 
D constituted for the purpose of rationalization of wages-The committee to 
formulate a Scheme relating to the amount to be paid to the workmen 
without regularizing them and also to examine the question of parity of the 
wages-Recommendations of the Committee has to be acted upon by the 
State Government after obtaining view of all the concerned parties-Order 
of the High Court shall not be given effect to. 
E 
Respondent-workers Union filed writ petitions before the High Court 
for appropriate directions to the employer-University for payment of wages to 
daily rated workers as per provision of the Minimum Wages Act It was alleged 
that qualification, nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the daily rated 
labourers are same as that of permanent labourers employed by the University, 
F 
but they have been paid far less wages than the emoluments which were being 
-( 
paid to permanent workers. The High Court held that denial of the appropriate 
wages to the daily-rated workers amounted to exploitation of labour and directed 
the appellant that the daily rated workers were to be paid wages at the rate of 
basic pay at the minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowance divided by 
G 26. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-employer contended that the workers were seasonal workers 
and the question of their regularization does not arise in view of the judgment 
of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors,. 
'':>-
H 
548 
MARA THW ADA AGRI. UNI. v. MARA THWADA KRISHI VIDYAPITH 
549 
Respondents submitted that there is no question of regularization but A 
of parity of pay. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A Committee should be constituted for the purpose of 
rationalization of the wages to be paid to the workers. In the present case, the B 
question really is not of regularization. The more important factor is that the 
committee should hear the view of the parties and formulate a scheme relating 
to the amount to be paid to the workman without them being regularized. It 
shall also examine whether there is any necessity for parity of the wages, 
taking into account the norms relating to the method of requirement, the C 
seasonal nature of the employment, if any. 
(Para 6 and 7) (551-C; 553-B) 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 4 
sec 1 relied on. 
1.2. The committee, as constituted, in essence would be an equivalance 
committee. The report shall be given to the State Government within a period 
of four months from date of constitution of the committee. 
[Para 8) (553-D) 
1.3. The State Government then shall take necessary action on the basis E ' 
of the recommendation, after obtaining the view of the University and after 
giving all concerned parties an opportunity of stating their views. 
(Para 9) (553-E) 
2. The order of the High Court shall not be given effect to. 
F , 
(Para 9) (55:\-E) 
CIVIL APP.ELLA TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4454-4466 of 
2000. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.5.2000 of the High Court of G 
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 686of1988, 
4002of1991, 1202,1032, 1033, 947, 934 & 547of1990, 35 ofl992, 615, 377, 12 
of 1993 & 578 of 1986. 
V.A.Mohta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary and Nilkanth 
Nayak for the Appellants. 
H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
S.K. Dholakia and Jaideep Gupta, Gopal Balwant Sathe, S.S. Shinde, 
V.N.Raghupathy, S.V. Deshpande, Shivaji M. Jadhav, T. Raja and Dr. Kailash 
Chand for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. l. The present appeals are directed against 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Several Writ 
Petitions were disposed of by the High Court. These writ petitions were filed 
either by the Unions of the workers of the Marathwada Agricultural University 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'University') or by the employees of the University 
C again
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.