2021 (3) TMI 1365 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Equal Pay Principle for Casual Workers

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Versus Pankaj Singh Brijwal and Others, Narendra Singh Bisht and Others, Amar Ram and Others

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Versus Pankaj Singh Brijwal and Others, Narendra Singh Bisht and Others, Amar Ram and Others - [2022] 441 ... Issues Involved:1. Employment status of the petitioners as daily wage casual workers.2. Entitlement to minimum wages for the petitioners.3. Legality of changing the service conditions of petitioners to outsourcing.4. Discrimination in wages based on engagement period (pre-2013 vs post-2013).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Employment Status of the Petitioners as Daily Wage Casual Workers:The petitioners were engaged as daily rated wagers from 2002 to 2011 under the administrative control of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani. They were continuously discharging duties as Peon and Watchman. The Principal Commissioner certified their status as deployed by the service provider under a contractual agreement. However, the petitioners argued that they were directly engaged by the Department and not through any outsourcing agency, which was supported by the learned Single Judge.2. Entitlement to Minimum Wages for the Petitioners:The petitioners claimed they were not being paid minimum wages despite performing the same duties as other daily wagers directly engaged by the Department before 2013, who were receiving Rs. 16,300 per month. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners, despite being engaged post-2013, had a common similarity with pre-2013 casual workers as they were directly engaged by the Department. Therefore, denying them minimum wages was impermissible in law. The judgment cited the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' under Articles 14, 16(1), and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal pay for identical work under the same employer.3. Legality of Changing the Service Conditions of Petitioners to Outsourcing:The Department issued instructions in 2013 declaring the post of Peon and Watchman as a dying cadre, suggesting that such work should be outsourced. The petitioners contended that their status could not be changed to outsourcing as they were directly engaged by the Department. The learned Single Judge ruled that the decision to change the service conditions of the petitioners to outsourcing was impermissible in law and discriminatory.4. Discrimination in Wages Based on Engagement Period (Pre-2013 vs Post-2013):The learned Single Judge found that the criteria for payment of minimum wages could not be changed merely because the petitioners were engaged post-2013. The judgment emphasized that similarly situated daily wagers performing the same duties should receive equal pay, irrespective of their engagement period. The decision cited Supreme Court rulings, including 'State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh' and 'State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Putti Lal,' which upheld the principle of equal pay for equal work for temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld, directing the respondents to continue the petitioners as casual workers and pay them minimum wages as similarly engaged daily wagers. The judgment reinforced the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure equal pay for equal work and rejected the appellants' contention that the petitioners were employees of an outsourced service providing agency. The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them at the admission stage.