The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka etc.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition Nos. 8307-11 of 1983.
Petitioner: The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association & Ors.
Respondent: State of Karnataka etc.
Apeal: Writ Petition Nos. 8307-11 of 1983.
Judges: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 14, 1988
Appearances:
Mr. R.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mohan Katarki, Advocate, Ms. Rani Jethmalani Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Krishna Murthy Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. Ramasesh Advocate, Mr.M. Veerappa Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Equal pay for equal work – Gangmen, Sowdies, and etc. monthly rated employees – Entitled to same salary as paid to regular employees.
Regularisation – Casual Labours and Monthly rated workmen – State permitted to from rational scheme to absorb in regular cadres.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, only on one of the questions involved in this case viz. whether the monthly rated Gangmen who are referred to in Paragraph 1 of the Government’s Order No. PWD 100 PWC 83, Bangalore dated 13th January, 1984 and the monthly rated Sowdies etc. referred to in the Government’s Order No. PWD 120 PWC 84 dated 4th December, 1984 should be paid the same salary as the salary paid to Gangmen and Sowdies respectively who are employed regularly by the State Government. As we are of the view that the principle enunciated by this Court in Paragraph 8 of the Judgment of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India & Ors. (1988(1) SCC 122) is applicable to this case also, we direct the Government of Karnataka to pay salary to such workmen at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed Gangmen or Sowdies, as the case may be, but without any increment with effect from 1.7.1988. The question whether they are entitled to any arrears for the period between the date on which their services were regularised under the State Government’s Orders and 1.7.1988 will be considered along with the other questions involved in this case at the final hearing. This case shall stand adjourned by three months. In the meanwhile we permit the State Government to frame a more rational scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly rated Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres. The case need not be treated as part-heard.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, only on one of the questions involved in this case viz. whether the monthly rated Gangmen who are referred to in Paragraph 1 of the Government’s Order No. PWD 100 PWC 83, Bangalore dated 13th January, 1984 and the monthly rated Sowdies etc. referred to in the Government’s Order No. PWD 120 PWC 84 dated 4th December, 1984 should be paid the same salary as the salary paid to Gangmen and Sowdies respectively who are employed regularly by the State Government. As we are of the view that the principle enunciated by this Court in Paragraph 8 of the Judgment of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India & Ors. (1988(1) SCC 122) is applicable to this case also, we direct the Government of Karnataka to pay salary to such workmen at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed Gangmen or Sowdies, as the case may be, but without any increment with effect from 1.7.1988. The question whether they are entitled to any arrears for the period between the date on which their services were regularised under the State Government’s Orders and 1.7.1988 will be considered along with the other questions involved in this case at the final hearing. This case shall stand adjourned by three months. In the meanwhile we permit the State Government to frame a more rational scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly rated Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres. The case need not be treated as part-heard.
