9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Anganwadi workers hold a civil post. 2. Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. Whether Anganwadi workers are entitled to minimum wages and other employment benefits. Summary: Issue 1: Whether Anganwadi workers hold a civil post. The Supreme Court examined whether Anganwadi workers hold a civil post by referring to the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Programme, which is funded by the Central Government but implemented by the States. Anganwadi workers are appointed from local inhabitants and paid an honorarium, not a salary. The Court noted that Anganwadi workers do not carry out any function of the State, do not hold posts under a statute, and are not subject to recruitment rules applicable to State employees. The Court distinguished this case from others where posts were statutory and governed by specific rules. It concluded that Anganwadi workers do not hold civil posts as they are appointed under a scheme and not through a statutory process. Issue 2: Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal had held that the application was maintainable, opining that Anganwadi workers, despite being paid an honorarium, hold civil posts. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Court emphasized that Anganwadi workers are not holders of civil posts and thus do not fall within the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction u/s 15 of the Act. Issue 3: Whether Anganwadi workers are entitled to minimum wages and other employment benefits. The respondents argued that Anganwadi workers should not be paid less than the minimum wages fixed by the State, as it would amount to beggary. The Court, however, stated that the Minimum Wages Act applies to workmen in specified industries and not to those working under a project like ICDS. The Court noted that the concept of minimum wage, living wage, or fair wage cannot be applied in this context. The Court also highlighted that Anganwadi workers are free to contest elections, which is not typically allowed for holders of civil posts. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that Anganwadi workers do not hold civil posts and thus, the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.
|
