State of Punjab v. Romeshkumar

IN T

The State of Pun Romesh Kumar

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

SUDEEPTI SH

and decree date whereby the ap

24.12.1997 is al BRIEF FACTS

2.

respondent was initially joined services were t Labour Court, B with continuity submitted his jo

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da njab and Another

VERSUS

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab. ne for the respondent -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is filed by the ed 01.12.2000 passed by the l ppeal filed by the respondent a llowed. S e brief facts of the present case a employed as cleaner in Punjab the service of the department terminated on 16.01.1983. He Bathinda, vide its award dated 19 y of service and full back wa oining report before the departm

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2757-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 18.10.2024

....Appellants

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA e State of Punjab against judgm learned District Judge, Ferozep against judgment and decree da as stated in the civil suit are that b Roadways, Ferozepur Depot. as cleaner on 04.06.1981 and e raised an industrial dispute

9.11.1990 ordered his reinstatem ages. Thereafter, the respond ment and also sent many remind

ment pur, ated He his ment dent

He was allowe department. In wages on accou fixed by the De suit that he wor regularly appoin to the pay-scale the ground of e Court on 19.11. even arrears of Therefore, he fi annum qua pay further challeng for the post of c

3.

Up plaintiff as clean is an Industrial wage basis from respondent raise reinstated the r award. He was of retrenchment sanctioned post employed only a and allowance a

ed to join his duty vide order pursuance of said award, he wa unt of arrears of pay and allowanc eputy Commissioner, Ferozepur rked equally for equal time and nted cleaners of the department d of post of cleaner and the arrear equal pay for equal work. The 1990, but the department did no f back-wages were not paid to filed a civil suit claiming the sa yment of arrears of back-wages ged the order dated 01.09.1992 d leaner as being paid to other clea on notice, the appellant filed ner in the department and furthe Organisation and the responden m time to time for specified da ed the industrial dispute and Lab respondent and he was taken o also paid the full back-wages at t of his services. It is further s of daily wage in Punjab Road as and when the work arises. Th as claimed.

r dated 01.09.1992 issued by as paid some amount towards ba ce as per daily wage employee r . The respondent submitted in d did similar nature of duty as did. Therefore, he would be entit rs as paid to the regular cleaners e award was passed by the Lab ot re-instate him till 01.09.1992 him inspite of repeated reque ame alongwith interest @24% s paid to him on 18.08.1994. denying him wages in the pay-sc aners. d written statement admitting er submitted that Punjab Roadw nt was initially appointed on da ays. It was further stated that bour Court, Bathinda vide its aw on duty in compliance of the s t the rate, he was getting at the ti stated in the reply that there is dways, Ferozepur and the person herefore, he was not entitled to p

ack-ate, tled s on bour ests. per He cale ways aily ward said ime n is

4.

and denying the

5.

Fro the learned Tria

1. OP

2.

3.

6.

Aft learned trial Cou decree dated 24 limited days, the

7.

decree dated 24 not appreciated relief before his was re-instated Learned first ap Lal Vs. State Girdhari Lal an Surinder Singh 1986(1) S.L.R.4 the post of clean

8.

Hen

e respondent filed replication rei e allegations in the written statem om the pleadings of the parties, th l Court:- Whether the plaintiff is enti PP Whether notice u/s 80 CPC w Relief. ter hearing both the parties an urt dismissed the suit filed by th .12.1997 on the ground that sinc erefore, he was entitled to the wa e plaintiff-respondent filed an

4.12.1997. The same was allow the controversy in question, as s retrenchment order was passe after retrenchment order was ppellate Court after relying upo of Punjab and Another, 1990 nd others Vs. State of Haryana h and Another Vs. The Engin 435 held him entitled to equal p ner. He was not held entitled to a nce the present appeal.

iterating the averments of the pla ment. he following issues were framed itled to the declaration prayed f was served on the defendants? O nd perusing the whole record, he respondent vide its judgment ce he was appointed for a particu ages accordingly. appeal against the judgment a wed by holding that trial Court h s the respondent was claiming n ed and for the period for which s set aside by the Labour Co on the judgments in cases of Ki 0 (1) Recent Service Judgmen a and Ors. 1996 (1) S.L.R 152 a neer-in-chief C.P.W.D and Oth pay for equal work as is granted any interest.

aint d by for? OPP ular had new h he ourt. imti nts; hers

SUBMISSION

9.

Lea passed by the le and facts on file civil suit filed b decree dated 01

10.

I ha whole record of

11.

A p services of depa on 16.01.1983.

12.

Vid ordered the app full back-wages was allowed to j

13.

cleaner continu Regularisation C

14.

Sin the date of his respondent wou cleaner.

15.

Another Vs. Sta

OF THE LEARNED COUNS arned State counsel for the app earned District Judge, Ferozepur e and the respondent is not enti by him. Therefore, the present ap .12.2000 passed by the learned D ave heard learned counsel for th f this case. perusal of the record shows that artment as cleaner on 04.06.198 de award dated 19.11.1990, pellants to re-instate the respond s but he was not allowed to join b join duty on 01.09.1992. e undisputed fact is that the r uously. He was regularised on Committee of the Department on nce the respondent worked on the appointment and he was regula uld be entitled to the regular pay e Hon'ble Supreme Court in th ate of U.T, 1986(1) SCC 637, he

EL FOR THE APPELLANT pellants contends that the judgm dated 01.12.2000 is against the l itled to the relief as claimed in ppeal be allowed and judgment District Judge be set aside. e appellants -State and perused t the respondent-plaintiff joined 81 and his services were termina learned Labour Court, Bathin dent with continuity of service by the department but ultimately respondent worked on the post the recommendation made by n 06.04.1993. e post of cleaner continuously fr arised on 06.04.1993, therefore, y-scale as is granted to the regu e case of Dhirendra Chamoli a ld as under:-

ment law ated nda, y he t of rom

"2. one bot com per on perf not Cla Cen Yuv sho Sec affi bee org res are env pos emp to app

These writ petitions have been e addressed by Dhirendra Cham th of whom are employees of Ne mplaint made in the writ petitio rsons who are engaged by Nehr daily wage basis and though th rformed by Class IV employees a t being given the same salary an ass IV employees. Since Nehru Y e Ministry of Education, Govt. ntral Government to show caus vak Kendras performing the sa ould not be paid the same sa cretary to the Govt. of India, Mi fidavit in which it is alleged tha en started at different places ganisations and they have not y ult that there are no sanctioned e employees who are engaged b e taken as casual employees on visaged in the counter affidavit is sts to which regular appointm ployees employed by different N receive the same salary and p pointed regularly to sanctione

initiated on the basis of two lette moli and the other by Mohan Sin ehru Yuvak Kendra, Dehradun. T ons is that there are a number ru Yuvak Kendra as casual work hey are doing the same work as appointed on regular basis, they nd allowances as are being paid Yuvak Kendras have been started of India, we issued notice to se why the employees of the Ne ame duties as Class IV employ alary and allowances. The un inistry of Sports has filed a coun at the Nehru Yuvak Kendras h s in the country as tempor yet been made permanent, with d posts of Class IV employees a by different Nehru Yuvak Kend n daily wage basis. The argum s that since there are no sanctio ments can be made, the cas Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot cla perquisites as Class IV employ ed posts. But while raising

ers, ngh r of kers s is are d to d by ehru yees nder nter ave rary dras ment ned sual aim yees

arg eng perf san Cen con aga Go Neh dai ill i arg soc arg so star offe emp wag as o Go equ is t val

gument, it is conceded in the c gaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kend rformed by Class IV employees nctioned posts. If that be so, it ntral Government can deny to th nditions of service as Class I ainst sanctioned posts. It is pe vernment to urge that these per hru Yuvak Kendras knowing ful ily wages and therefore they can in the mouth of the Central Gov gument with the exploiting class cialist pattern of society cannot gument. It must be remembered much unemployment, the choic rve or to take employment on fered by the employer. The fa ployment with full knowledge ges and they will not get the sam other Class IV employees, canno vernment to avoid the mandat of the Constitution. This Arti uality before law and equal prot the further principle that there m lue. These employees who are in

counter affidavit that "the pers dras perform the same duties a appointed on regular basis aga is difficult to understand how hese employees the same salary a IV employees regularly appoin eculiar on the part of the Cen rsons took up employment with lly well that they will be paid o nnot claim more. This argument vernment for it is an all too fami and a Welfare State committed t t be permitted to advance such that in this country where there ce for the majority of people is n whatever exploitative terms ct that these employees accep that they will be paid only da me salary and conditions of serv ot provide an escape to the Cen te of equality enshrined in Art icle declares that there shall tection of the law and implicit i must be equal pay for work of eq n the service of the different Ne

ons s is inst nted tral only lies liar to a an e is s to are pted aily vice tral icle be in it qual

Yuv sam diff lon sam

16.

In v decree dated 01 same is upheld a

17.

Pen

October 18, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

vak Kendras in the country and me duties as Class IV employees, d conditions of service as C fference whether they are appoin ng as they are performing the s me salary and conditions of servi view of the above, I do not find

1.12.2000 passed by the learne and the present appeal is dismiss nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

who are admittedly performing , must therefore get the same sal Class IV employees. It makes nted in sanctioned posts or not. same duties, they must receive ice as Class IV employees. d any infirmity in the judgment ed District Judge, Ferozepur. T sed being devoid of any merit. tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

lary