TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions and directed the respondents (appellants herein) to consider the case of the writ-petitioners for their employment as daily wages casual workers and they shall be paid minimum wages/salary equal to those employees who are working as daily wages casual workers in the department, the respondents (appellants herein) are in appeal. 2. These three appeals are decided by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions. 4. The writ-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani, the respondent no.2, by means of which status of the petitioners have been certified as deployed by the service provider, who is under the contractual agreement to render services to the Income Tax Department and, in addition to this, it has also been opined that the claim of the petitioners for grant of the minimum wages does not succeed. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged as daily rated wagers from the year, 2002 to 2011, as mentioned hereunder, and they are working under the administrative control of the Principal Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., they are not being paid the minimum wages. Those daily wagers, who were engaged prior to the year, 2013, are being paid minimum wages and are getting an amount of Rs. 16,300/- per month, whereas, the petitioners, who were engaged by the Department directly, are getting approximately Rs. 7,000/- per month, less than the minimum wages. 11. The Directorate of Income Tax, New Delhi issued instructions dated 23.10.2018, whereby, Office Order dated 13.05.2013 was withdrawn and all the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/Director Generals of Income Tax were directed to ensure the compliance of the said order dated 23.10.2018 immediately. In view of the said instructions dated 23.10.2018, the Department has started to engage the petitioners through outsourcing ignoring the fact that the petitioners were directly engaged by the Department as casual workers. The Department has no authority to change the status of the petitioners by engaging them through outsourcing. The petitioners, who were engaged by the Department directly, are not being paid minimum of wages, whereas, similarly situated casual workers are being paid the minimum wages. 12. In order to voice their grievance, the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were being paid to similarly engaged daily wagers who were engaged prior to 2013. The petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services as the Department has not framed any regularization policy. In case, the Department chooses to frame regularization policy for casual workers (Group 'D' employees) in future, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise their claim. The learned Single Judge further clarified that those who have been engaged through outsourcing will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment. 15. Heard and perused the record. 16. The main contentions of Mr. H.M. Bhatia, the learned counsel for the appellants, are that the writ-petitioners are employees of outsourced service providing agency and secondly, a large number of casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing agency and they will also claim the same benefit of parity in their wages. 17. Mr. Anil Dabral, the learned counsel and Mr. Prashant Khanna, the learned counsel for the respondents, supported the judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge. 18. Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged as daily rated wagers from the year, 2002 to 2011 directly by the Department. Mr. H.M. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but, would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments. 23. Dealing with the question as to whether temporary engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointee, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others", (2017) 1 SCC 148, held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee-whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph no.58 of the said judgment, :- "58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action ....