SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rattan Lal
Vs.
Lt. Governor
Decided on : 6/3/1990
Regularization - Casual Labourers - Minimum Salary and Wages
Fact of the Case:
The court directed the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, ensuring regularisation within six months for those who have worked for one year or more in the Horticulture Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified the doubt regarding the expression 'salary or wages' used in the previous case, confirming that it meant minimum salary plus allowances, not just minimum wage. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Issues: Interpretation of the expression 'salary or wages' in the context of regularisation of casual labourers and the dispute regarding the payment amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the previous case's ruling on the absorption of casual labourers and the interpretation of 'salary or wages' to mean minimum salary plus allowances.
Final Decision: The court directed the Delhi Administration to regularize the petitioners in accordance with the scheme and clarified that the expression 'salary or wages' meant minimum salary plus allowances, not just minimum wage.
( 1 ) COUNSEL for the parties are agreed that these cases are squarely covered by a decision of this court in Writ Petition Nos. 9609-10 of 1983, titled Niadar v. Delhi Administration decided on 29/09/1988. In terms thereof thus, we direct the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, which scheme has been made effective from 1/10/1988. In terms of the scheme, any casual labourer who has worked for one year or more in the Horticulture Department shall be regularised within six months with effect from 1/10/1988 if such casual labourer is otherwise fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employee. On that footing each casual labourer working in the department shall get salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in comparable post in the Horticulture Department.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the expression salary or wages used in Niadar case and which has been used instantly also has given rise to a doubt in the department as to whether on regularisation minimum wage is to be paid or minimum salary to the regular employee, and on that doubt Rs. 750. 00 per month instead of rs. 1,100. 00 per month has been paid to some of the employees. Learned counsel for the Delhi Administration disputes this fact and says that it was always meant and always shall mean that minimum salary plus allowances which come up to about Rs. 1,100. 00 has been paid to such employees and is otherwise payable. This clarifies the doubt expressed. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in these terms. No costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.