State of Bihar and its officials have challenged the recommendation dated 28.5.2012 made by Chairperson, Bihar Human Rights Commission in File Nos. 547/11, 42,752,938/12, communicated to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Information Technology Department, Government of Bihar by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission under Letter No. 6361 dated 29.5.2012, Annexure-11. Aforesaid recommendation was made by the Commission considering the complaint of Data Entry Operators, Respondent No. 2 to 5 that take home remuneration of Rs. 6341/- per month payable to them is meager impinging on their livelihood. The Commission having considered the grievance recommended that Data Entry Operators at the entry level be paid remuneration at least one notch higher than the proposed wage structure at the entry level i.e. Rs. 10,086/- recommended for Grade-II, if not more. The Commission also expected the Government to take a holistic view of the matter and to accept its recommendation to pay the Data Entry Operators remuneration at least one notch higher.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the impugned recommendation made by the Commission amounts to revision of wage payable to Data Entry Operators which is the executive function of the appropriate Government in accordance with procedure laid down in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is also submitted that the Commission having made the recommendation to provide dignified wage/livelihood to the Data Entry Operators usurped executive function of the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Commission ought not to have recommended revision of quantum of wage to be paid to contractual employees Respondent No. 2 to 5 herein when the contractual employees concerned are neither employees of the State Government nor of Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “BELTRON”) rather their services have been provided to the State Government by BELTRON adopting the mode of outsourcing from private agency. The concerned employees entered into written agreement with BELTRON wherein the wages to be paid to them were clearly specified. They agreed to receive the quantum of wage by accepting the contractual employment.

3. Counsel for the State with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging House Vs. State of Mysore AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2042 paragraph 9 submitted that the main object of the Minimum Wages Act is to prevent exploitation of unorganized labour as the Act proceeds on the basis that it is the duty of the State to see that at least Minimum Wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the Industry or Unit to pay the same. The mandate of Article 43 of the Constitution is that the State should endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. The fixing of minimum wage is just the first step in that direction. With reference to the aforesaid observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court it is submitted that State Government having already fixed wage of the Data Entry Operators higher than the minimum wage fixed by the appropriate Government, there was hardly any occasion for the Commission to recommend still higher remuneration to be paid to the Data Entry Operators.

4. In this connection learned counsel for the State relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006)4 SCC Page-1 paragraph 45 to 48. It appears from perusal of Paragraph 45 relied upon by the learned counsel for the State that Supreme Court having considered the nature of engagement of temporary, contractual or casual workers observed that the temporary, casual or contractua