2021 (3) TMI 1365 - HC - Income Tax

Criteria of payment of minimum wages - Temporary employees entitlement to regular pay-scale on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis - Employees of outsourced service providing agency - 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 - casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing agency - 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? - 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 - HELD THAT - In Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others 2019 (4) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT Hon ble Supreme Court observed that The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh 2020 (10) TMI 1323 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees ad-hoc appointees employees appointed on casual basis contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj - 2003 (7) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT ) and Surjit Singh (State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh 2009 (8) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT ) this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. In the light of the above discussions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the impugned judgment. We do not find any perversity and infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. Therefore this Court does not find any merit in the present appeals. All these three Special Appeals are liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

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 ?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.

← Previous Next →