2020 (10) TMI 1323 - HC - Income Tax

Criteria of payment of minimum wages - petitioners were directly engaged by the Department as casual workers - HELD THAT - Court is of the view that the petitioners were engaged in 2013 and some causal workers were engaged prior to 2013 directly by the Department, therefore, merely on the ground that the petitioners were engaged in 2013, the criteria of payment of minimum wages cannot be changed. It is apt to note here that the petitioners and those casual workers who were engaged prior to 2013 had a common similarity i.e. these sets of casual workers were directly engaged by the Department. Thus, for the reason that they were engaged after 2013, they cannot be denied payment of minimum wages and they cannot be compelled to serve them through outsourcing. The decision of changing the service conditions of the petitioners that they shall be engaged through outsourcing is impermissible in law. In so far those causal workers, who have been engaged through outsourcing, they have no similarity with the petitioners. The respondents cannot discriminate with the petitioner in the guise that after 2013, the Group D cadre has been declared as dying cadre. Be that as it may, the respondents cannot deny the same wages to the petitioner. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners as casual workers in the Department as they were directly engaged by the Department and they shall be paid minimum of wages as 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. It is made clear that those who have been engaged through outsourcing will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking quashing of an order by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
2. Petition seeking payment as per specific instructions
3. Petition seeking payment of minimum wages similar to other daily wagers

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioners sought a writ to quash an order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioners, engaged as daily wagers from 2002 to 2010, were not satisfied with the non-regularization of their services. The Central Board of District Taxes declared the post of Peon and Watchman as a dying cadre, leading to outsourcing of these positions. The petitioners claimed they were not paid minimum wages like similarly situated directly engaged daily wagers, thus challenging the order.

Issue 2: Another petition requested a writ to direct the respondents to make payments in accordance with specific instructions dated 30.07.2019. The petitioners argued that they were not receiving the minimum wages despite being engaged directly by the Department. They highlighted discrepancies in payment compared to those engaged prior to 2013, who were receiving higher amounts. The respondents began engaging the petitioners through outsourcing, contrary to their direct engagement status.

Issue 3: The third petition sought a writ to command payment of wages equivalent to those received by similarly situated daily wagers. The court noted that the petitioners and pre-2013 casual workers shared the commonality of direct engagement by the Department. The judgment emphasized that changing the petitioners' status to outsourcing employees was impermissible. The court directed the respondents to continue the petitioners as casual workers, paying them the minimum wages similar to pre-2013 engaged workers.

In conclusion, the court disposed of all writ petitions, directing the respondents to maintain the petitioners as casual workers and pay them minimum wages as per the pre-2013 engagement standards. Regularization was not granted due to the absence of a formal policy. The judgment clarified that those engaged through outsourcing would not benefit from the decision. The respondents were instructed to consider the petitioners' employment as daily wage casual workers, ensuring equal pay to other department employees in similar roles.