AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 856/2015 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19230/2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 121-131/2016 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8473/2012, 19394/2012, 23980/2012, 23981/2012, 23986/2012, 34868/2012, 38228/2012, 38231/2012, 38235/2012, 38236/2012, 19236/2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 735/2015 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19278/2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 793-817/2015 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20025/2011 and 19396/12, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30275/2012, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30276/2012, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1577/2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5597/2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29683/2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19095/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19282/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19251/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25279/2012, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12438/2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12433/2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5350/2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19221/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19260/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19257/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19206/2014, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25277/2012, Special Leave Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered that they shall be entitled to minimum pay as fixed by the Labour Commission. This led to another round of litigation as the Petitioners claimed that on their classification as 'permanent' to their respective posts they were entitled to receive the pay-scale attached to the said posts. These reliefs were granted to them by the labour court against which appeal preferred before the industrial court and the writ petition before the High Court were also dismissed. In all these cases, thereafter, special leave petitions were filed which were dismissed by this Court by common order dated 21st January, 2015. This order reads as under: Delay condoned. Dismissed. We direct the State Government to implement the order(s) passed by the High Court within eight months' time from today. If for any reason, the Petitioner-State does not implement the order(s) passed by the High Court, the Respondents are at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing contempt petition(s). 2. The State Government has passed the orders fixing the pay of these Petitioners at the minimum of the regular pay-scale attached to the respective posts. To demonstrat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs and there is no direction given by the High Court to give them increments etc. which is admissible only when a person is appointed on regular basis or whose services are regularised, which has not happened in the case of the Petitioners. 5. Learned Counsel who appeared for these Petitioners have drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the standing orders on the basis of which they were classified as permanent. It is standing order No. 2 which deals with classification of the employees and reads as under: 2. Classification of Employees. -- Employees shall be classified as (i) permanent, (ii) permanent seasonal, (iii) probationers, (iv) Badlies, (v) apprentices, and (vi) temporary: (i) A 'permanent' employee is one who has completed six months' satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise, or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of permanent employee; (ii) A 'permanent seasonal employee' is one who has completed service for a period equal to 2/3rd of the duration or a season or three months whichever is less in a clear vacan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was submitted that after the dismissal of the appeal, Bhasker Sharma was not only granted regular pay-scale but is getting increments and other benefits attached to the said post as well. It was also argued that many such employees have been given similar benefits and the State Government has now taken a 'U' turn and is not willing to extend such benefits to the Petitioners herein. Copies of many such orders passed by the High Court are filed by the Petitioners as additional documents in support of their submissions. 8. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, who appeared on behalf of the State Government and the Contemnors emphasised that the only direction of the High Court, which has been upheld by this Court, is that these Petitioners are entitled to pay in a regular scale. It is argued that they have been classified as "permanent" because of the aforesaid standing orders which means that their services would not be terminated. However, that does not mean that the Petitioners are regularised against any posts. It was also argued that each of these Petitioners have been given substantial amount as arrears of pay in terms of the orders passed by the High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,25,000/- for unskilled, Rs. 1,50,000/- for semi-skilled, and Rs. 1,75,000/- for skilled workers. (VII) Such daily wager employees who were working on 16.5.2007, and have also been in service as on 1.9.2016 will be entitled to the pay scale mentioned above and other benefits. 6. In view of the aforesaid scheme, the MP Daily Wages Employee (Conditions of Service), Rules, 2013 now stands repealed. 7. The scheme also prescribes the steps to be taken for filling up the vacant Regular posts. For this purpose the vacant Class IV posts available in the regular setup under various departments at the district level would be filled up on priority from the existing sthayee karmis. The workers working with various Construction Departments (Nirman Vibhag) will be treated as Industrial Workers for the purposes of Standing Order Act, 1961 and Rules, 1963 and the permanent classified employees of such Departments are also entitled to be regularised accordingly. 8. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the daily wage employees are also entitled to the aforesaid benefits at the time of superannuation as mentioned in the Scheme. He, thus, submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in dispute that the Petitioners were initially engaged on daily wage basis. Their engagement was also done without following any selection procedure. It also does not emerge from record that the initial engagement of these Petitioners was against regular vacancies. Normally, in such a situation even if these persons, because of their long service and also on the assumption that they are discharging the same duties as discharged by regular employees, such employees can claim the salary which is being paid to regular employees holding similar posts on the principles of 'equal pay for equal work'. This aspect has exhaustively and authoritatively being dealt with by this Court in a recent judgment dated 26th October, 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013, titled State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013; 26th October, 2016 and other connected appeals, though, there is one distinguished factor, viz. the Petitioners herein have been conferred the status of 'permanent' employees. However, an important question which arises is as to whether such 'permanent' employees are same as employees appointed on 'regular' basis or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Constitution Bench, having noticed the contentions of the rival parties, on the subject of wages payable to daily-wagers, recorded its conclusions as under: 55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the salary at the lowest grade of their cadre. The Constitution Bench expressed the view, that the concept of equality would not be applicable to the issue of absorption/regularization in service. And conversely, on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held, that daily-wage earners should be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade (without any allowances). 13. Another significant reason for referring to the judgment of Jagjit Singh Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013; 26th October, 2016 is that the Court culled out the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' from the earlier judgments on the subject and collated them at one place. Further, the Court also drew an important distinction between the grant of benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees on the one hand and the status of regular employees on the other hand. Insofar as parameters of principles of 'equal pay for equal work' deduced by the Court are concerned (para 42), our purpose of deduction stated in sub-para vi thereof is important, which is reproduced below: (vi) For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efines "Standing Orders" and as per Section 6, the State Government may, by notification, apply Standard Standing Orders to such class of undertakings and from such date as may be specified therein. Section 21 empowers the State Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act which are required to be notified. It empowers the State Government to frame Standard Standing Orders as well. It is in exercise of powers Under Section 21(1) of the Act that the State Government has framed Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Annexure to these Rules contains standard Standing Orders for all undertakings in the State. Standing Order No. 2 of this Order enumerates classification of employees which has already been reproduced above. As per this classification, an employee would be known as 'permanent employee' who has completed six months' satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether on probation or otherwise or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of 'permanent employee'. It follows from the above that merely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terms of the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules framed thereunder, the Respondent Authority was statutorily enjoined to make an offer of appointment in writing which was to be accepted by the Appellants herein. Who made the appointments of the Appellants to the project or other works carried on by the Authority is not known. Whether the person making an appointment had the requisite jurisdiction or not is also not clear. We have noticed hereinbefore that in the case of Om Prakash Mondloi, the CEO made an endorsement to the effect that he may be tried in daily wages and should be entrusted with the work of progress collection of ODA work. The said order is not an "offer of appointment" by any sense of the term. xxx xxx xxx 31. The Standing Orders governing the terms and conditions of service must be read subject to the constitutional limitations wherever applicable. Constitution being the suprema lex, shall prevail over all other statutes. The only provision as regards recruitment of the employees is contained in Order 4 which merely provides that the manager shall within a period of six months, lay down the procedure for recruitment of employees and notify it on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yee or as a temporary employee. An appointment to the post of a temporary employee can be made where the work is essentially of temporary nature. In a case where there existed a vacancy, the same was required to be filled up by resorting to the procedures known to law i.e. upon fulfilling the constitutional requirements as also the provisions contained in the 1976 Regulations. No finding of fact has been arrived at that before the Respondent was appointed, the constitutional and statutory requirements were complied with. xx xx xx 22. Such appointments, in our opinion, having regard to the decisions in Mahendra L. Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005 SCC (L & S) 154] and Manoj Shrivastava [(2006) 2 SCC 702] must be made in accordance with extant Rules and Regulations. It is also a well-settled legal position that only because a temporary employee has completed 240 days of work, he would not be entitled to be regularised in service. Otherwise also the legal position in this behalf is clear as would appear from the decision of this Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh [(2005) 2 SCC 470 : 2005 SCC (L & S) 292] apart from Mahendra L. Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005 SCC (L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommendations of Sixth Pay Commission which were accepted qua regular employees. This Court, though, upheld the orders of the High Court giving them the benefit of revision of pay-scale pertained to Sixth Pay Commission, but at the same time made it clear that they would be entitled to minimum salary and allowances as per the said revised scales and would not be entitled to any increments. It was further held that such increments would be admissible only after regularisation of their services which regularisation was to take place as per the seniority list with due procedure. Following passage from the said judgment, which captures the aforesaid directions, is quoted hereunder: We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that the Respondents earlier moved before the Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior by filing original applications such as O.A. No. 648 of 1995, O.A. No. 293 of 1991 etc. In compliance of the orders passed in such original applications, the Chief Engineer, Yamuna Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Gwalior (M.P.) (by orders issued in between April,. 2004 and June, 2004 provided the minimum wages and allowances to the Respo....