2000 Supreme(Bom) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
V.K. Barde A.S. Bagga, JJ.
Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith Magasvargiya
Sevak Kalyankari Sangh.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 686 of 1988, decided on 5-5-2000.
Advocates appeared :
S.B. Talekar, for petitioners.
M.S. Indani, Asst.G.P., for respondent No. 1.
K.G. Navandar, Sr.A. M.N. Navandar and G.N. Sirsat, for respondents Nos. 2 to 33.

Headnote:Article 39 (d)-Equal pay for equal work-When there is no dispute that the work which is done by the daily rated workers of the categories skilled, semi skilled and unskilled is the same as is being done by the permanent labourers and is also on record that in some other such universities daily rated workers are working as such and are being paid same wages as the permanent worker are being paid, hence, it is legal to claim equal wages for the equal works being done by the daily rated labourers.- The basic thing to be noted is, whether the daily rated workers are doing the same work, which the permanent labourers are doing. The daily rated workers are being employed mostly as unskilled labourers to work on agricultural fields. Then, there are certain semiskilled and skilled labourers. It is not at all disputed by the Respondents that the. work which is being extracted from the daily" rated workers in these three categories is the same, as is being done by the permanent labourers. The agricultural labourer, whether he is a permanent or daily rated, has to do the same work n the field; and from this point of view, the contention of the Petitioners that the daily rated workers and the permanent workers are doing the same work will have to be accepted.

       So far as the contention that the University will have to pay very high wages to the daily rated workers is concerned it must be noted that documents and some decisions of the Industrial Courts and other Courts are filed on record, which indicate that, with respect to workers working in the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, the daily rated workers are being paid wages equal to the permanent workers. It is also brought on record that in Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, same wage structure is adopted and, therefore, it cannot be disputed that the workers of Marathwada Agricultural University also must get the same benefits.

       The very plea of the Respondents that the University will have to bear very high financial burden if the daily rated workers are paid equal to the permanent labourers indicates that a wild discrimination is being practiced by the University while paying wages to the daily rated workers and salaries to the permanent labourers; and for that, the only- reason being forwarded is that there will be heavy financial burden on the University. But, financial burden cannot be a ground to allow such discrimination. The Apex Court in the matter of Chief Conservator of Forest and another, etc., etc., v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, etc., etc., reported in AIR 1996 SC 2898, has observed in paragraph 28 as under:

       "In so far as the financial strain on State exchequer is concerned, which submission is sought to be buttressed by Shri Dholakia by stating that in the Forests Department itself the casual employees are about 1.4 lacs and if all of them were to be regularised and paid at the rate applicable to permanent workmen, the financial involvement would be in the neighborhood of Rs. 300 crores a very high figure indeed. We have not felt inclined to bear in mind this contention of Shri Dholakia as the same has been brought out almost from the hat. The argument relating to financial burden is one of despair or in terrorem. We have neither been impressed by the first nor frightened by the second inasmuch as we do not intend that the view to be taken by us in these appeals should apply, proprio vigor, to all casual labourers of the Forests Department or any other Department of the Government."

       Thus, it is very clear that, whether the labourer is a daily rated worker or a permanent worker, if the nature of work is the same then equal pay must be paid for equal work. Neither the University nor the State Government can deny this basic right of the labourers, especially those who are the lowly paid workers.

       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, semiskilled, or, unskilled, as the case may be.

       Hence, court directed that the daily rated workers be paid wages, as mentioned above, with effect from 1st May, 1988. The arrears payable to the daily rated workers be worked out within the period of six months from this date and all the arrears be paid to them within the period of nine months from today by the Respondent.

       It must be noted that preparing the seniority list for the workers or employees who are in permanent or temporary service or on probation, is one thing; and there, the principle of first day of entry in service can be very well made applicable without any difficulty. However, in case of daily rated workers, where the workers are being employed in a large number not on regular basis, but intermittently, as per the availability of the work, the seniority list cannot easily be prepared on the basis of first day entry in service. Many a time, the persons who seek employment on daily rated basis do not come on duty on next available occasion for various reasons, and in their place, some other persons are required to be appointed to get the work done. By very nature, the daily rated employment is optional or voluntary, so far as the worker is concerned. Even if the work is available, he may not accept the job for his own reasons. So, in such cases, instead of applying the principle of preparing the seniority list on the basis of first date of entry in the service, the practice which is followed by the University of preparing the seniority list on the basis of number of days of work put in by the work is more reasonable and practical.