SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Bom) 276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.S. Dharmadhikari H.H. Kantharia, JJ.
Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Majoor Union others.... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4554 of 1983, decided on 19/20-9-1984.

Advocates appeared :
Smt. Indira Jaising and Anand Grover, for petitioners.
A.V. Savant, A.G., with M.P. Saldanha, A.G.P., for respondents.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---Petitioner No. 1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Union has as its members agricultural workers employed in the District of Ahmednagar. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are agricultural labourers in Shirampur Tahsil of Ahmednagar District and they work on Employment Guarantee Scheme works since last many years. In this petition, the petitioners have mainly challenged the provisions of section 7(2)(vii) of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 and have prayed for a declaration that the provision in section 7(2)(vii) to the extent it provides for payment of total wages for EGS work equal to the minimum wage for the agricultural labourer in the Lowest Zone fixed by the State Government from the time to time is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution of India. That the task rates which are fixed for EGS works by Government Resolution, dated 18-3-1983 are not fixed as per the provisions in section 7(2)(vii) of the Act and, therefore, the said rates fixed by the Government Resolution, dated 22-4-1981 should be uniformly increased by at least 50% in view of the increase by 50% in the minimum wage for agricultural labourers. The petitioners have then prayed for a declaration that the sum of rupee one fixed as an unemployment allowance under section 8(4) of the Act is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and should be re-fixed to enable the bare survival of the workman who are not provided with work under the EGS. According to the petitioners, this unemployment allowance should be on par with the minimum wage for agricultural worker fixed for the respective zones or that it should at least bear a rational relation with the minimum wage. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the Collector, respondent No. 2, to pay to 242 workmen, who were not provided employment under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, an unemployment allowance for the relevant period.

2. It is an admitted position that the task rates were fixed for the first time for EGS works by Government Resolution dated 14-2-1975. These task rates were revised by Government Resolution, dated 3-3-1976. Obviously, this was under the scheme known as Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme. Thereafter in the year 1977 the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act came to be enacted. Government Notification fixing the minimum wage for the agricultural labour in the different zones was issued on 25-10-1978. Though the present enactment was enacted in the year 1977, it was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 3-10-1978 and came into force with effect from 26-1-1979. On 22-4-1981 the Planning Department of the Government of Maharashtra fixed the schedule of rates for EGS works. Thereafter on 31-1-1983 the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification revising the minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers. By this notification the minimum rates of wages were fixed zonewise, and the minimum wage for unskilled employees in the Lowest Zone, that is Zone four is fixed at Rs. 6.00 per day. On 18-3-1983 the Government of Maharashtra revised the task rates. It is then the case of the petitioners that in Shrirampur Tahsil in all 242 wrokmen submitted their applications to the Tahsildar to provide them with work. However, these workmen were provided work only for 9 days. They again approached the Collector of Ahmednagar to provide them work, but no work was provided to them, nor was unemployment allowance paid. Therefore, according to the petitioners, their unemployment allowance is wrongfully withheld by the respondents.

3. Smt. Indira Jaising, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that so far as section 7(2)(vii) of the Act, which provides for fixation of uniform schedule of rates for all the zones in the State, with a view to enable the workers only to earn the minimum wage fixed for the lowest zone is concerned, it is wholly discrimina




















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top