Daily Wage Workers Entitled to Minimum Pay: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Forest Department Employees (14 November 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 November 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 980

Judges: S.A. Bobde, J. and L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Are daily wage workers entitled to the same minimum pay as regular employees? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court of India case involving daily-rated workers in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department. The court addressed whether these workers, performing similar duties as regular staff, should receive the minimum pay scale applicable to their regular counterparts. This judgment clarifies the rights of temporary employees to receive fair compensation for their work.

Case Background

The Appellants were daily-rated workers in Group ‘D’ posts within the Forest Department of Uttar Pradesh. They sought regularization of their services, the minimum pay scales equivalent to regular employees, and the condoning of breaks in their service. The case originated from writ petitions filed by the workers in the High Court of Allahabad. The workers had been employed on a daily-wage basis and were seeking parity in pay with regular employees.

The workers also sought a direction to the State to regularize their services, along with condonation of breaks in service. The High Court initially directed the State to consider regularization of the daily wagers by condoning breaks in service if it was less than three months. However, the High Court rejected their claim for minimum pay scales, stating that such a direction cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The daily-rated workers initially filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Allahabad seeking regularization, minimum pay scales, and condoning of service breaks. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their petitions, only directing the State to consider regularization by condoning breaks less than three months. The Single Judge also rejected the claim for minimum pay scales. The workers then filed Special Appeals, which were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, relying on its earlier judgment in Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007.

In Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007, the State of Uttar Pradesh had appealed against a Single Judge’s order that directed the State to reconsider daily wagers for regularization, relax minimum qualifications, and pay them the minimum of the pay scales. The Division Bench set aside the directions relating to relaxation of minimum educational qualifications, physical endurance requirements, and the payment of minimum pay scales, relying on the Supreme Court judgments in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 23] and State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh [(2009) 9 SCC 514].

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and its applicability to daily wage workers. The Supreme Court considered whether daily wage workers, performing the same duties as regular employees, are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees. The Court examined previous judgments on the subject, including the principle laid down in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal [(2006) 9 SCC 337] and State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148]. The Court also considered the judgments in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 23] and State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh [(2009) 9 SCC 514], which were relied upon by the High Court to deny the minimum pay scales to the daily wagers.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that they are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal [(2006) 9 SCC 337].
• They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148], which held that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.
• They contended that they were performing the same duties as regular employees and, therefore, were entitled to the same minimum pay.
• They also referred to the directions given by the Supreme Court in contempt applications filed for non-compliance of orders regarding payment of minimum pay scales to daily wage workers in the Forest Department.
• The Appellants submitted that they were paid the minimum of the pay scales from 29th January, 2016 to 31st March, 2018, and according to the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission, the minimum pay scale they are entitled to is Rs.18,000/-.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the Appellants were employed on projects as and when the necessity arose, with no continuity of service.
• They contended that the Appellants were not eligible for regularization as per the rules and were not working on sanctioned posts.
• The State argued that granting relief to the Appellants would impose a heavy burden on the State exchequer.
• The State relied on the judgments in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 23] and State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh [(2009) 9 SCC 514], which held that daily wagers are not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Appellants (daily wage workers) are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to make payment of the minimum pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st December, 2018.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal [(2006) 9 SCC 337]*, stating that the principle of equal pay for equal work was affirmed in this case.
• The Supreme Court distinguished State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 23]* and State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh [(2009) 9 SCC 514]*, which were relied upon by the High Court to deny the minimum pay scales to the daily wagers.
• The Supreme Court relied on State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148]*, which held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees holding the same post.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The Court emphasized that employees performing the same duties should receive the same minimum pay, regardless of their employment status (daily wage or regular). The Court also highlighted the exploitative nature of paying less wages to daily wagers as compared to others similarly situated, stating that such an action undermines human dignity. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148], which extensively discussed the issue of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the daily wagers were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales because they were not working on sanctioned posts or because their employment was not continuous. The Court emphasized that the nature of work performed was the deciding factor, not the nature of employment. The Court also rejected the argument that granting relief would impose a heavy burden on the State exchequer, stating that this cannot be a valid reason to deny the minimum pay scales to the daily wagers.

The Court quoted from Jagjit Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 148]:
“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 besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity.”

The Court further stated:
“Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity.”

The Court also observed:
“Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

Key Takeaways

• Daily wage workers performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based on the nature of employment (daily wage vs. regular).
• The State cannot deny minimum pay scales to daily wagers citing financial burden.
• This judgment reinforces the rights of temporary employees to fair compensation for their work.

Directions

The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to make payment of the minimum of the pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st December, 2018.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that daily wage workers performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees. This judgment reinforces the principle laid down in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal [(2006) 9 SCC 337] and State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148]. It clarifies that the nature of work performed is the deciding factor, not the nature of employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the principle of equal pay for equal work, ensuring that daily wage workers receive fair compensation for their labor. The Court’s ruling mandates that daily wage workers in the Forest Department of Uttar Pradesh be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to their regular counterparts, effective from December 1, 2018. This judgment has significant implications for temporary employees across the country, reinforcing their right to receive fair wages for their work.