Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Manjulaben Dhirajlal Joshi - Appellant
Vs.
Kodinar Municipality & Anr. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 10068 of 2009
With
Civil Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 19-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr TR Mishra
For the Respondent: Mr. Jay Trivedi, Asst. Government Pleader, Mr. Amar D Mithani, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to receive the minimum pay scale and other benefits, as per legal provisions and the principle of equal pay for equal work, regardless of the nature of their appointment or previous termination and reinstatement.
Headnote:
Minimum Wages - Employment Dispute - [Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976] - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to minimum wages and consequential benefits as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent Municipality. The court referred to various legal provisions and decisions, including the principle of equal pay for equal work, to establish the petitioner's right to receive the minimum pay scale and other benefits. The court held that the respondent Municipality's action of paying a fixed salary below the minimum wages was illegal and arbitrary, and directed the Municipality to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of her original appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, sought payment of minimum wages and consequential benefits from the respondent Municipality. The petitioner's services were terminated and reinstated multiple times, leading to a dispute over her entitlement to minimum wages and other benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having served as an Assistant Teacher from 1990 to 2016, was entitled to receive the minimum pay scale and other benefits as per legal provisions and previous court decisions. The court held the respondent Municipality's action of paying a fixed salary below the minimum wages as illegal and directed the Municipality to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to minimum wages and consequential benefits as an Assistant Teacher, considering the history of termination and reinstatement of her services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's continuous service as an Assistant Teacher, the principle of equal pay for equal work, and previous court decisions establishing the entitlement to minimum pay scale and other benefits for employees in similar situations.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondent Municipality to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of her original appointment. The Municipality was also instructed to recalculate and pay all benefits due, including gratuity and leave encashment, within four weeks. The petitioner was, however, not entitled to claim pensionary benefits due to ceasing attendance prior to superannuation.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pay the minimum wages to the petitioner as notified by the Government of Gujarat which is being paid to other similarly situated employees and be further pleased to direct the respondent to pay arrears thereon from the date of reinstatement of the petitioner;
Amendment carried as per court’s order dated 28-2-2023
(AA) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to pay minimum pay-scale of the post of Assistant Teacher from the date of appointment till date of retirement with all consequential benefits;
(B) Direct the respondent to pay the arrears alongwith 12% interest thereon;
(C) Any other and such further relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;”
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was working with Kodinar Municipality and her services came to be terminated and therefore, the petitioner raised industrial dispute which was decided on 27.12.2000, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and keep her for 5 years on temporary basis and on completion of 5 years, the petitioner be made permanent and granted consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that this Award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent Municipality by filing Special Civil Application No.2894 of 2000 before this Court and the petitioner had also filed Special Civil Application No.11098 of 2003. Both the petitions were jointly heard by this Court and vide orders dated 30.08.2005 and 05.09.2005, both the petitions were allowed by this Court holding that it was found that since the order was passed without giving an opportunity for showing cause or hearing the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained, however, the Court also kept option open for the employer to take disciplinary action. That, in the present case, neither of these two opportunities provided by the Court have been availed of, admittedly, no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner before passing the order dated 13.09.2004.
2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.7337 of 2008, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2008 directing the respondent Municipality to comply with the order dated 05.09.2005 within three months. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for payment of minimum wages which is being paid to all the employees working in the respondent Municipality, whereas, the petitioner is paid only Rs.750/- which is far below the minimum rates of wages.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the aforesaid prayers.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Amar Mithani, appearing on behalf of the respondent – Kodinar Municipality and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jay Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of minimum wages which is being paid to all the employees working in the respondent Municipality, whereas, the petitioner is paid only Rs.750/- which is far below the minimum rates of wages. He has submitted that the minimum rates of the wages is applicable to the local self-government as notified by the Government of Gujarat, whereas, a hyper technical issue is raised that there is no order passed by the High Court and therefore, the petitioner will not be paid minimum wages as notified by the Government of Gujarat. He has submitted that therefore, the impugned action on the part of the
