M/S SUMAN FORWARDING AGENCY PVT. LTD. v. THE CHIEF PATRON/VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION MAJDOOR UNION

2 M/S SUMAN FORWARDING AGENCY PVT. LTD...... Petitioner Through: Mr.Harvinder Singh and Mr.Shiven Khurana, Advocates versus THE CHIEF PATRON/VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION MAJDOOR UNION..... Respondent Through: Ms.Asha Jain Madan and Mr.Mukesh Jain, Advocates for R-1 Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.Waize Ali Noor, Advocate Mr.K.K. Tyagi and Mr.Iftekhar Ahmad, Advocates for CWC Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae + W.P.(C) 10665/2017 & CM Appls. 43644/2017, 43645/2017 3 CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION THROUGH: ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, DELHI REGION..... Petitioner Through: Mr.K.K. Tyagi and Mr.Iftekhar Ahmad, Advocates versus CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS..... Respondents Through: Ms.Asha Jain Madan and Mr.Mukesh Jain, Advocates for R-1 Mr.Harvinder Singh and Mr.Shiven Khurana, Advocates for R-2 Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae 2019:DHC:4615 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. In State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, the Supreme Court held that principle of ―equal pay for equal work” expounded through various decisions of Supreme Court constitutes law declared by Supreme Court, which is binding on all courts in India and is applicable to all temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) who are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned posts.

2. Paras 51.1, 51.2, 51.3, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), to the extent they are relevant, read thus: ―51.1. It is apparent that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh did hold that the determination rendered in para 55 of the judgment in Uma Devi (3) case, was in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. But the above observation does not lead to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ is not applicable to temporary employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary employees. The Constitution Bench would, in the above situation, be deemed to have concluded that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular employee discharging the same duties. It needs to be noticed that on the subject of pay parity, the findings recorded by this Court in Umadevi (3) case, were limited to the conclusions recorded in para 55 thereof (which we have dealt with above, while dealing with the case law on the principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖).

51.2. Even in the case under reference, State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, this Court accepted the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, as applicable to temporary employees by requiring the State to examine the claim of the respondents for pay parity by appointing an expert committee. The expert committee was required to determine whether the respondents satisfied the conditions stipulated in different judgments of this Court including State of Punjab v. Charanjit Singh, wherein this Court had acceded to the proposition that daily wagers who were rendering the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees, would be entitled to the minimum wage payable to regular employees.

51.3. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the claim of the temporary employees for minimum wages on a par with regularly engaged government employees cannot be declined on the basis of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh. xxx xxx xxx

55. In view of all our above conclusions, the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, dated 11-11-2011, is liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby set aside. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh is also liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set aside. We affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar, with the modification that the employees concerned would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts held by them. xxx xxx xxx

57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarised by us in para 42 hereinabove. The principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarised by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again.

58. 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. 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. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. 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. 59.……….There is no escape from the above obligation in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee—whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.

60. ……There can be no doubt, that the principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post.

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the present bunch of cases would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post.‖ (Emphasis supplied)

3. Vide order dated 28th March, 2019, Central Government was directed to file a status report on affidavit as to whether all Government Departments/ PSUs/Corporations under the Central Government including CWC are complying with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh, (supra). Para 25 of the order dated 28th March, 2019 is reproduced hereunder: ―25. The Central Government is directed to file the status report on affidavit as to whether all Government Departments/PSUs/Corporations under the Central Government including CWC are complying with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) by paying the wages in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court to the temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like). If all the Government Departments/ PSUs/Corporations are not complying with the directions of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), the Government shall forthwith issue O.M. to all the Government Departments/PSUs/Corporations to comply with the aforesaid directions and place the same before this Court on the next date of hearing.‖

4. On 01st August, 2019, the status report was filed by the Central Government in which it was stated that the matter relating to equal pay for equal work for the workmen employed by the contractor is regulated by Rule 25(2)(v) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. Relevant portion of the status report is reproduced hereunder: ―3. It is submitted that the DoPT has vide OM dated 29.07.2019 informed that DoPT has already issued an OM dated 07.06.1988 in respect of wages of casual labourers engaged by Ministries/Departments which is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh – (2017) 1 SCC 148. Para IV of the OM dates 07.06.1988 states as under:- ―Where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day‖ A copy of the OM dated 29.07.2019 alongwith OM dated 07.06.1988 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE-A.

4. With regard to the implementation of the OM dated 07.06.1988 in the PSUs/Corporations under the Central Government, Department of Public Enterprises is required to be approached and consulted which will require some time.