Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Person Entitled To Remuneration According To Status Or Statutory Or Presdribed Minimum.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : State Bank Of India & Others Vs. Chandra Deo On 08/07/2009 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1262 OF 2002
CORAM : Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J. And Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Special Appeal No. 1262 Of 2002 AFR 
State Bank Of India And Others Vs. Chandra Deo Court No. 36 


HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J. 
HON'BLE S.S. TIWARI, J. 

1. The Respondent Was Engaged By The State Bank Of India, Johnstonganj, Allahabad Branch (the Bank) As A Daily Wage In 1981. The Bank Thought Of Regularising The Services Of Such Persons And Published An Advertisement On 20.8.1991. The Respondent Applied And Appeared In The Interview Before The Committee On 18.11.1981. He Was Successful And His Name Was Kept In The 1991 Panel. 

2. The Service Of The Respondent Was Not Regularised. He Filed A Representation For Regularisation Of The Same. When It Was Not Being Decided, He Filed Writ Petition No. 2978 Of 2001. It Was Disposed Of On 31.2.2001, With A Direction To The Bank To Decide The Same. The Representation Was Rejected On 17.2.2001. The Respondent Filed Writ Petition Substantially Claiming: Quashing Of The Order Dated 17.2.2001, For His Regularisation, And To Pay Him Salary As A Regular Class IV Employee. It Was Partly Allowed On 11.10.2001. Hence The Present Special Appeal By The Bank. 

Findings And Directions - Single Judge 
3. The Single Judge Has Held That: 
The Respondent Has Been Discharging Various Functions Of The Bank In The Temporary Capacity; 
His Service Cannot Be Regularised; 
He Can Not Be Paid Salary As A Regular Employee. 

4. However, The Single Judge Has Issued The Following Directions: 
(i) The Claim Of The Respondent For Absorption Should Be Considered As And When Vacancy Arises Considering The Continuity Of His Service Atleast From The Year 1991. 
(ii) The Bank Should Permit The Petitioner To Work As Class IV Employee Ensuring Payment At Least Minimum Pay Scale In That Cadre. 

5. We Have Heard Ms. Manisha Ambwani Holding Brief Of Sri Vipin Sinha For The Appellant And Sri RC Shukla For The Respondent. 

6. The Single Judge Has Rejected The Claim Of The Respondent For Regularisation And Salary Of A Regular Employee. No Appeal Has Been Filed Against That Part Of The Judgment. This Part Has Become Final And Requires No Consideration By Us. 

Ist Direction 
7. The First Direction Is For Considering The Claim Of The Respondent For Absorption As And When Vacancy Arises Treating The Continuity Of Services At Least From 1991. 

8. The Respondent Has Been Engaged By The Bank Since 1981. He Has Been Selected And Kept In The Panel For Absorption. Considering The Circumstances Of The Case, This Direction Needs No Interference. 

IInd Direction 
9. The Single Judge Has Held That The Respondent Was Not Working As Canteen Boy But Was Discharging The Work At The Bank. No Illegality Has Been Pointed Out In This Finding: It Is Upheld. However The Question Is, 
'Whether The Respondent Is Entitled To Work As Class IV Employee And Be Paid Minimum Pay Scale In The Cadre Of Class IV Employees'. 

10. The Respondent Was Engaged As A Daily Wager. The Single Judge Has Made Observations That He Worked In The Temporary Capacity. Some Documents Were Pointed Out To Us, Where Reference Was To The Word 'अस्थाई' While Referring To The Respondent But No Document Has Been Pointed Out To Show That The Respondent Has Been Appointed As Temporary Employee In Class IV Service Of The Bank. 

11. A Daily Wager Also Works In Temporary Capacity: He Is Not A Permanent Employee. It Is Not Disputed That The Contesting Respondent Was Initially Engaged As A Daily Wager. In Absence Of Any Document Appointing The Respondent As Temporary Employee In Class IV, Has His Capacity Will Be, That For Which He Was Initially Engaged, Namely That Of A Daily Wager. 

12. The Supreme Court In The Tilak Raj Case (see End Note-1) After Referring To The Earlier Decisions (See End Note-2) Held: 
'In A Recent Case, This Court In State Of Orrissa Vs. Balaram Sahu Speaking Through One Of Us (Doraiswamy Rajy, J.) Expressed The View That The Principles Laid Down In The Well Considered Decision Of Jasmer Singh Case Indicated The Correct Position Of Law. It Was Noted That The Entitlement Of The Workers Concerned Was To The Extent Of Minimum Wages Prescribed For Such Workers. If It Is More Than What Was Being Paid To Them. 
A Scale Of Pay Is Attached To A Definite Post And In Case Of A Daily Wager, He Holds No Posts. The Respondent Workers Cannot Be Held To Hold Any Posts To Claim Even Any Comparison With The Regular And Permanent Staff Of Any Or All Purposes Including A Claim For Equal Pay And Allowances.' 

13. Minimum Wages Act Defines What Is A Minimum Wage That Is Required To Be Paid. It Is Being Revised From Time To Time. It Is This Minimum That Worker Has To Be Paid. In Case This It Is Paid Then It Cannot Be Said There Is Violation Of Article 23 Of The Constitution. 

14. In Our Opinion, A Person Is Entitled To Remuneration Attached To His Status Or The Statutory Minimum Applicable To Him. However, In A Suitable Case, Where Principle Of 'equal Pay For Equal Work' Is Applicable, It Could Be More. 

15. Nothing Has Been Pointed Out To Us To Show That The Statutory Minimum Pay Scale Applicable To The Person Of The Respondent's Status Is The Minimum Pay Scale Of Class IV Employee. In Paragraph 10 Of The Judgment, We Have Held That The Respondent Is A Daily Wager. He Is Entitled To Get The Remuneration As A Daily Wager. In View Of The Same, Second Direction Could Not Be Issued. 

Conclusions 
16. In View Of Our Finding, The Appeal Is Partly Allowed. The Second Direction Issued By The Single Judge Is Modified To The Extent That The Bank Will Permit The Respondent To Work As A Daily Wager And Pay Him Remuneration Accordingly. If It Is Less Than The Statutory/ Prescribed Minimum For Such Persons Then He Is Entitled To That Minimum. 

17. It Is Possible That The Respondent May Have Received More Remuneration Than Permissible As Has Held By Us. It Is Clarified That The Extra Amount Of Remuneration Already Given To The Respondent Under The Order Of The Court Will Not Be Recovered By The Bank. 

18. With These Observations, The Appeal Is Partly Allowed. 



End Note-1: State Of Haryana And Another Vs. Tilak Raj And Others: (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 123. 
End Note-2: (1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC (L & S) 210: State Of Haryana Vs. Sasmer Singh And (2003) 1 SCC 250 : 2003 SCC (L & S) 65, State Of Orissa Vs. Balaram Sahu. 

 

 

Go to Navigation