Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Dy. Director, Social Forestry Divn. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Lakshmi Chandra – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) 28317-28321 of 2010] With Civil Appeal Nos. 884-85 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) 27593-27594 of 2010] With Special Leave Petition (C) 26571-26572, 26664-26665, 27506-27507, 27578-27579 of 2010, 1340, 1342 & 1343 of 2011
Decided on : 02-02-2016
IMPORTANT POINT
There should not be any laxity in implementation of Superior Court directions.
Headnote:Civil Appeal Nos. 884-85 of 2016
Labour law – Wages to daily wages workers – Supreme Court already directing payment of minimum of pay scales without any allowances etc. till the workers remain on daily wages – Authorities directed to file affidavits before High Court on implementation of the directions – Authorities also directed to ensure payment of wages within two weeks failing which they shall not draw their salaries. (Para 6, 7)
(2006) 9 SCC 337 – Relied upon
Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016
Labour law – Regularisation – Supreme Court already directing regularisation of daily wages workers in terms of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001 – Also directing to pay minimum of pay scales to the daily wages workers – High Court drawing contempt proceedings for non-implementation of the directions and proceeding to frame charges – Appellants submitting that eligibility and seniority lists of the daily wages workers have been prepared – In view of the reported progress High Court requested to take subsequent developments into consideration and do the needful – Framing of charge deferred. (Para 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The case relates to payment of minimum of pay scales to daily wages workers and regularisation of their services.
The Supreme Court had given directions and in their light the High Court issued orders. The respondents complained of inaction of State authorities.
The High Court proceeded to frame charges for contempt of its directions/orders.
Finding of the Court:
High Court requested to take subsequent developments into consideration.
Result: Appeals and SLPs disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 884-85 of 2016 [@ SLP (C) 27593 27594 of 2010]
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the proceedings for contempt initiated against them. The disputes herein are in a very narrow compass, regarding the payment of minimum of the pay-scale to the daily wagers working in the Forest Department in Group-D posts.
3. In the contempt application, being Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 2465 of 2004, by order dated 01.07.2010, the High Court passed the following order:-
"It is not the case of the opposite parties that the applicants are not working in the Forest Department at different places after the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. It is admitted that the applicants are working as daily wagers. Thus, once this Court had issued directions to pay all the daily rated workers the minium of the pay scale but without allowances and other benefits, the applicants would be entitled to minimum of the pay scale so long they continue to work as daily rated workers in the Forest Department. The opposite parties by not paying the minimum of the pay scale to all the daily rated workers working in the Forest Department on the cut off date and thereafter have thus violated/disobeyed the directions of this Court contained in the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the case of Putti Lal (supra). In view of discussions made above, the Court is prima facie satisfied that there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience/non compliance on the part of the opposite parties of the directions of this Court as contained in the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra), as modified by the Apex Court."
4. The High Court had, in fact, directed the payment in terms of an order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 dated 21.02.2002 titled as State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Putti Lal reported in (2006) 9 SCC 337, in which this Court had held :-
"In several cases, this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counter part in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counter part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily wager. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to."
5. It is seen from the records of the contempt petition that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State had filed an affidavit before the High Court to the effect that necessary instructions had been issued to all the officers concerned to implement the directions referred to above with regard to payment of minimum of the pay-scale to the daily wagers.
6. We direct the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests, U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. to file separate affidavits before the High Court on the implementation of the orders referred to above. In case, the workmen have not been paid the amounts as per the orders, they shall see that wages are paid in terms of the orders within a period of one month from today and the affidavit in that regard shall be filed before the High Court within two weeks thereafter.
7. In case, the orders are not implemented, the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall not be eligible to draw their salaries from the month of April, 2016, without permission from the High Court.
8. Subjec
