Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4454-4466 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Marathwada Agricultural University & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith,M.S.K.S. & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/08/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4454-4466 OF 2000
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of
a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Several Writ
Petitions were disposed of by the High Court. These writ
petitions were filed either by the Unions of the workers of the
Marathwada Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as
the ’University’) or by the employees of the University against
the State of Maharashtra and against the University. The
primary grievance was that qualification, nature of work,
duties and responsibilities of the work of labourers who were
daily rated labourers are same as that of permanent labourers
employed by the University. Even then the daily rated workers
were getting far less wages than the emoluments which were
being paid to permanent labourers. It was also submitted that
the Maharashtra Mumbai Wages Commission constituted
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had fixed the rate of
wages depending upon the zones in the Marathwada region.
But the University paid these daily rated workers far less.
2. The High Court held that denial of the appropriate wages
to the daily-rated workers amounted to exploitation of labour.
The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant
position by forcing them to work as casual labourers on
starvation wages. Therefore, it was directed that the daily
rated workers were to be paid wages with effect from 1st May,
1988 at the rate of basic pay i.e. at the minimum of the pay
scale plus dearness allowance divided by 26.
3. The directions in essence were as follows:
"Therefore it is being directed that if the daily
rated workers are being given paid weekly off,
then they be paid the wages at the rate of basic
pay (at the minimum of the pay scale) plus
dearness allowance divided by 30; and if paid
weekly off is not being given to the daily rated
workers, then they be paid wages at the rate of
basic pay (at the minimum of the pay scale)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
plus dearness allowance divided by 26. Such
payment should be on the basis of the
categories of the daily rated workers, such as,
skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, as the case
may be."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
workers were seasonal workers and the question of
regularization does not arise in view of what has been stated
by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma
Devi and Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that there is no question of regularization but of
parity of pay. A dispute has been raised by the appellant that
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’ID Act’) was
not applicable because the University was not an industry. It
was also submitted that the High Court’s direction is to work
out applicable norms.
6. Considering the peculiar nature of the controversy, we
feel that a committee should be constituted for the purpose of
rationalization of the wages to be paid to the concerned
workers. In Uma Devi’s case (supra) in paras 20 & 21 it was
noted as follows:
"The decision in Dharwad Distt. PWD
Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State
of Karnataka (1990(2)SCC 396) dealt with a
scheme framed by the State of Karnataka,
though at the instance of the Court. The
scheme was essentially relating to the
application of the concept of equal pay for
equal work hut it also provided for making
permanent, or what it called regularization,
without keeping the distinction in mind, of
employees who had been appointed ad hoc,
casually, temporarily or on daily-wage basis.
In other words, employees who had been
appointed without following the procedure
established by law for such appointments.
This Court, at the threshold, stated that it
should individualise justice to suit a given
situation. With respect it is not possible to
accept the statement, unqualified as it
appears to be. This Court is not only the
constitutional court, it is also the highest
court in the country, the final court of appeal.
By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution,
what this Court lays down is the law of the
land. Its decisions are binding on all the
courts. Its main role is to interpret the
constitutional and other statutory provisions
bearing in mind the fundamental philosophy
of the Constitution. We have given unto
ourselves a system of governance by rule of
law. The role of the Supreme Court is to
render justice according to law. As one jurist
put it, the Supreme Court is expected to
decide questions of law for the country and
not to decide individual cases without
reference to such principles of law.
Consistency is a virtue. Passing orders not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
consistent with its own decisions on law, is
hound to send out confusing signals and
usher in judicial chaos. Its role, therefore, is
really to interpret the law and decide cases
coming before it, according to law. Orders
which are inconsistent with the legal
conclusions arrived at by the court in the
selfsame judgment not only create confusion
but also tend to usher in arbitrariness
highlighting the statement, that equity tends
to vary with the Chancellor’s foot.
In Dharwad case (supra) this Court was
actually dealing with the question of "equal
pay for equal work" and had directed the
State of Karnataka to frame a scheme in that
behalf. In para 17 of the judgment (in SCC),
this Court stated that the precedents obliged
the State of Karnataka to regularise the
services of the casual or daily/monthly-rated
employees and to make them the same
payment as regular employees were getting.
Actually, this Court took note of the argument
of counsel for the State that in reality and as
a matter of statecraft, implementation of such
a direction was an economic impossibility and
at best only a scheme could be framed. Thus
a scheme for absorption of casual/daily-rated
employees appointed on or before 1-7-1984
was framed and accepted. The economic
consequences of its direction were taken note
of by this Court in the following words: (SCC
pp. 408-09, para 24)
"24. We are alive to the position that
the scheme which we have finalised is
not the ideal one but as we have
already stated, it is the obligation of
the court to individualise justice to
suit a given situation in a set of facts
that are placed before it. Under the
scheme of the Constitution the purse
remains in the hands of the
executive. The legislature of the State
controls the Consolidated Fund out of
which the expenditure to be incurred,
in giving effect to the scheme, will
have to be met. The flow into the
Consolidated Fund depends upon the
policy of taxation depending perhaps
on the capacity of the payer.
Therefore, unduly burdening the
State for implementing the
constitutional obligation forthwith
would create problems which the
State may not be able to stand. We
have, therefore, made our directions
with judicious restraint with the hope
and trust that both parties would
appreciate and understand the
situation. The instrumentality of the
State must realize that it is charged
with a big trust. The money that flows
into the Consolidated Fund and
constitutes the resources of the State
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
comes from the people and the
welfare expenditure that is meted out
goes from the same Fund back to the
people. May be that in every situation
the same taxpayer is not the
beneficiary. That is an incident of
taxation and a necessary concomitant
of living within a welfare society."
7. But the question really is not of regularization. The more
important factor is that the committee should hear the view of
the parties and formulate a scheme relating to the amount to
be paid to the workman without them being regularized. It
shall also examine whether there is any necessity for parity of
the wages, taking into account the norms relating to the
method of requirement, the seasonal nature of the
employment, if any.
8. The committee shall consist of Smt. M.H. Pandit, Joint
Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as a
representative for the State Government and Shri Udhav,
Joint Secretary of the Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Karamchari
Union and the University shall nominate two persons who
have expertise in financial matters. The committee in essence
would be an equivalance committee. The report shall be given
to the State Government within a period of four months from
date of constitution of the committee.
9. The State Government then shall take necessary action
on the basis of the recommendation, after obtaining the view
of the University and after giving all concerned parties an
opportunity of stating their views. The order of the High Court
shall not be given effect to in view of the directions as
contained above.
10. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as
to costs.