important point
For such cases it is required to formulate a scheme relating to the amount to be paid to the workman without them being regularized.

JUDGMENT

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) 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.,1 [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 Constitut