M. S. LIBERHAN, CJ.

( 1 ) IT is a glaring case of an unfair labour practice by an expected to be an ideal employer representing the State i. e. , an instrumentality of the State which is duty bound, under the Constitution of India, to provide social justice, fair and humane conditions for working and not to evolve technicalities to evade its duties towards the citizens, enjoined by the law and the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent was employed as far back as on1-11-1987as a sweeperand washerman for the purpose of cleaning the buses. The appellants, for reasons best known to them, wanted to draw a curtain between the relationship of employer and employee by invoking and articulating the terminology of contract labour which is not applicable to the appellants and which is, rather we may hasten to add, is prohibited. The 1st respondent s services were terminated orally on 16-8-1988 contrary to the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The poor worker was forced to seek appropriate relief before the Labour Court by filing an industrial dispute. The worker, after fighting the mighty management for six years, secured the relief of reinstatement on 16-5-1994 through an award of the Labour Court. The management did not feel satisfied. The award was challenged which was rejected and finally the worker is reinstated on 6-11-1995. Still, the management was not satisfied and was not ready and willing to give the due of the worker.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed at the Bar, on our repeated asking, that the personssimilarly employed are discharging the same functions with no distinction whatsoever either in the nature of work, hours of work, responsibilities of work and duties of work and no difference in work has been pointed out between the work carried out by the other cleaners and the 1st respondent in these appeals. The principle of equal pay for equal work has not only been totally lost sight of, if we may hasten to add, but also intentionally has not been taken care of by the authorities. In view of the checkered history to which the 1st respondent-worker was put, to litigate with a mighty industry of the state which has no love for the expenditure to be incurred on litigation, the 1st respondent-worker, in spite of continuous service of almost 12 years by now, is still fighting with the appellants to get his due. In spite of the due having been granted by the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 still the appellants, for reasons best known to them, on one pretext or the other do not want to give him his due and preferred the writ petitions in this Court inter alia contending that Section 33-C (2) would not be attracted as the 1st respondent was a casual labour and still continues to be a casual labour and is not entitled to the regular scale of pay and that question cannot bedetermined under Section 33-C (2)ot the Industrial Disputes act, 1947.

( 4 ) IN our considered view there is no gain saying that Article 226 of theconstitution of India, as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, is meant for doing justice and substantial iustice and not to do just injustice or to determine the technicalities and legalities of the findings on the objections. Here nothing has been pointed out in what manner and what prejudice the appellants have suffered by the determintion by the Labour Court of the wages payable to the 1st respondent on the principle of equal pay for equal work which is not in dispute. The Labour Court was expected only to calculate the amount due. The principle is not in dispute. Duties are not in dispute. Functional parities are not in dispute. We fail to comprehend how the object of reducing the litigation and avoiding the technicalities by the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is subserved if the appellants are permitted to raise such frivolous objections not sustainable in the eye of law and forcing the worker to litigate for every right of his in the Courts. It is a glaring case o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document