Part-time employees are entitled to minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee if engaged continuously for a substantial period, and the principle of equal pay for equal work extends to temporary and part-time employees.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"1. The respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper/Class-IV Employee under the respondent Company from the date of his appointment.

2. The respondents be directed to make the payment of regular pay scale to the petitioner."

2. The petitioner in this petition has pleaded that his father was working on temporary basis with the respondent-Corporation on the post of Sweeper/Class-IV and after death of his father, he came to be appointed on temporary basis on muster roll in the year 1999, as a Full Time employee.

3. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that initially he was paid Rs. 100/- per month and later on Rs. 250/- was paid to him till the year 2011 and thereafter, the same was revised to Rs. 500/- per month from January, 2012 onwards.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that he has rendered his services with full dedication since 1999 and the respondents even did not pay him the minimum wages, as payable under the Minimum Wages (Revised) Act.

5. The petitioner has pleaded that he having worked for more than 10 years, is also entitled for regularization of service but no heed was paid to the petitioner by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are guilty of following unfair labour practice and services rendered by the petitioner are like doing 'Begar' which is strictly prohibited by the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been working continuously since 1999 and the respondents neither considered the petitioner's case for regularization nor paid him the minimum wages and as such, the respondents have been taking the undue benefit of the situation by forcing the petitioner to work and as such, suitable direction is required to be given to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and to pay him the regular pay scale.

8. Learned counsel submitted that even the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in [(2006)4 SCC Page 1], has held that services of such an employee, who worked on temporary basis for a considerable period of 10 years, can be regularized as work done by the petitioner is perennial in nature.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others v. Jagjit Singh & Others reported in [(2017)1 SCC 148].

10. Learned counsel, on the strength of said judgment, submitted that the State or its agencies cannot exploit and enslave the employees and even for a person working on temporary basis, the employer is under an obligation to at least grant the minimum pay scale of regular employees to such an employee.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been asked to work from the office of the respondents and he was continuously attending his duty without any complaint, the respondents cannot be permitted to exploit the petitioner and as such, relief claimed by the petitioner is required to be granted.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that reply to writ petition has been filed.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the stand of the respondents is that the nature of work performed by the petitioner is on part time basis and for the same he has been paid accordingly.

14. The respondents have pleaded in their reply that since the petitioner has been working as part time Sweeper just for two hours daily and after rendering two hours of services with the respondents, the petitioner is said to be going at other different places to work.

15. The respondents have pleaded that the minimum wages is payable to only those employees, who are working on muster roll on daily wage basis, however, the petitioner did not work on muster roll or he is not a daily wage employee but is working as a part time employee.

16.