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

2024 Supreme(J&K) 338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.
Ali Mohammad Mir & Ors. –Appellant 
Versus 
State of J&K (now UT) & Ors. – Respondent
SWP No. 615 of 2019 [WP (C) No. 918/2019] 
Decided on : 26-09-2024


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Firdous Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms Rekha Wangnoo, Government Advocate.

The right to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act is fundamental for dignity, and full-time workers cannot be denied this right based on part-time classification.

Headnote:

(A) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution - Petitioners, engaged as Safaiwalas for over 16 years, sought regularization and minimum wages - Respondents denied claims citing part-time status - Court emphasized the need for dignified living and adherence to minimum wage standards - Petitioners entitled to minimum wages as per SRO 460 of 2017 and subsequent notifications. (Paras 1-22)

(B) Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution - Court held that the right to live with dignity includes the right to fair wages, rejecting the notion of part-time status for full-time workers. (Paras 20-21)

(C) Judicial Precedents - Court referenced previous judgments affirming minimum wage rights for similar workers, establishing a consistent legal framework for wage claims. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners worked as Safaiwalas for over 16 years with minimal wages, seeking regularization and adherence to minimum wage laws.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners entitled to minimum wages of Rs. 225 per day from November 1, 2017, and Rs. 311 per day from October 17, 2022, with arrears to be paid within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether the Petitioners are entitled to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act and if their employment status affects this claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to minimum wages is fundamental for dignity and that the Petitioners, despite being labeled part-time, were engaged full-time and thus entitled to the minimum wage protections.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

01. (48) Petitioners have filed this Petition with a common cause, asserting therein that they, on being engaged, had been working as Safaiwalas with the Respondents in various dispensaries of the Indian System of Medicine under its Directorate on monthly wages of Rs. 100, Rs. 200 or Rs.900 for the last more than 15 years and that they had been discharging their duties like other regular employees working in the Respondent-Department to the satisfaction of their superior officers; that despite their requests on a number of times, the Respondents neither enhanced the wages of the Petitioners in order to enable them to meet their day-to-day requirements and to lead a dignified life, nor regularized their services on the pattern of regular employees working in the Department.

02. It has been further pleaded that some of the Petitioners approached this Court in the year 2010 by filing SWP No. 1256/2010 titled “Abdul Ahad Sheikh & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.”, wherein they had sought directions upon the Respondents to release pay to the Petitioners therein at least as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Respondent No.4-Directorate of Indian System of Medicine, J&K, on the basis of the Order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, recommended their case vide its communication dated 27th of January, 2010 to the Administrative Department, requesting them for creation of the posts for regularizing of the services of the Petitioners therein and also to enhance their wages; that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir also constituted a committee regarding the subject matter for the enhancement of monthly remuneration for Safaiwalas working in the Respondent Department and the Committee suggested that the matter be taken up with the Finance Department to consider to pay them wages, under the Minimum Wages Act or a reasonable hike to their monthly remuneration.

03. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition before this Court, wherein they have prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in their favour:

“a. Issue writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as the petitioners are working in the respondent- department from last more than 16 years without any break or disengagement till date.

b. Issue writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the salary/ wages of the petitioners on the principle of equal pay for equal work as per the constitutional scheme provided under the constitution of India or in the alternative to pay the petitioners in terms of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for which the respondents have already initiated the process as per Annexure II, III, IV & V of this Writ Petition.”

04. The instant Writ Petition SWP No. 615/2019, later renumbered as WP (C) No. 918/2019, being a service matter, was transferred to the Central Administration Tribunal, Jammu Bench, on its creation, vide Order passed by this Court on 26th of August, 2020, however, the Tribunal, vide Order dated 20th of February, 2023, submitted back this Petition, which had been numbered by the Tribunal as TA/1278/2021, on the basis of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been claiming the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. It is how this Petition was received back by this Court from the Tribunal.

05. The Respondents, in their Counter/ Objections, admitted that the Petitioners have been engaged on part time basis with monthly honorarium of Rs. 400 or Rs. 1000 and that there was no provision with regard to regularization of their services, being only part time engagees; that insofar as the claim of the Petitioners with regard to grant of minimum wages in terms of SRO 460 of 2017 dated 26th of October, 2017, it was submitted that the Respondents, in consultation with the Finance Department, found that the minimum wages, as claimed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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