Back
2020 Supreme(All) 862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Chandrawati Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 9927 of 2020
Decided on : 15-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ram Lalit Chaudhary
For the Respondent: Awadhesh Kumar, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Point of Law: Persons employed as cooks throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh are being paid such paltry amounts which clearly qualify as forced labour and they continue to render their services without any complaint whatsoever. This Court cannot comprehend that a person earning Rs. 1,000/-per month would be empowered to approach this Court, more particularly because of their socio economic condition, which forced them to accept the services on such conditions as have been imposed by the State
Headnote:
Minimum Wages Act – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 12, 23 – Removal of Services – Present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner is continuously working as a cook for making mid-day-meal in Basic Primary School Pinesar, Basti since 2005 and petitioner is also a member of Mandhyan Bhojan Rasoiya Mazdoor Sangh. – The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that despite the fact that the petitioner is working since 2005, the petitioner has been removed without any opportunity from 01.08.2019. – It is also alleged that since the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 2005, the petitioner was paid monthly wages of Rs. 1000/-per month and, despite the petitioner having worked for more than 14 years, she has been removed. – The petitioner claims to be a very poor lady and has no other source of income, however, somehow she managed resources to approach this Court for highlighting the exploitation of the petitioner at the hands of the government and the authorities which are State, within the meaning of Article 12. –
Finding of the Court:
Court is of the firm view that the Government Orders, referred to by the Standing Counsel being the Government Order prescribing Rs. 1,000/-per month as wages and the Government Order prescribing the minimum wages at Rs. 1,500/-per month are clearly a form of “Forced Labour”, which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India – Court have no hesitation in holding that the State has misused its dominant position in fixing the wages as have been fixed by the two Government Orders to be paid to the cooks employed for providing mid-day-meal – State Government and the Union of India are further directed to take steps for issuance of directions fixing the rate prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, as the wages which would be payable to the cooks employed for providing mid-day-meal in the Institutions run by the Government or the Semi-Government bodies, the respective Governments may work out their payment obligations in consultation with each other, however, it shall be ensured that the cooks are not paid wages less than the minimum prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, in any case. – It is clarified that this order shall operate to the benefits of all the cooks employed who provide mid-day-meal whether they have approached this Court or not or whether they approach the Government by filing a separate application or not. – Directions given by this Court shall be carried out by the District Magistrates in respect of all the cooks, who are working for providing mid-day-meal in the Government and Semi-Government Schools within their Districts. – The said exercise of payment of the difference of the amount, as directed above, shall be made within a period of four months from today. –
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner is continuously working as a cook for making mid-day-meal in Basic Primary School Pinesar, Basti since 2005 and petitioner is also a member of Mandhyan Bhojan Rasoiya Mazdoor Sangh. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that despite the fact that the petitioner is working since 2005, the petitioner has been removed without any opportunity from 01.08.2019. It is also alleged that since the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 2005, the petitioner was paid monthly wages of Rs. 1000/-per month and, despite the petitioner having worked for more than 14 years, she has been removed. The petitioner claims to be a very poor lady and has no other source of income, however, somehow she managed resources to approach this Court for highlighting the exploitation of the petitioner at the hands of the government and the authorities which are State, within the meaning of Article 12.
2. This Court had expressed its displeasure in the manner in which the amount of Rs. 1000/-was being paid to the poor lady for more than 14 years and, looking into the exploitation of the petitioner, had called the respondents to file a counter affidavit explaining as to why and how the petitioner was being exploited for such a long time by paying a meager amount of Rs. 1000/- per month.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed before this Court on 09.12.2020, wherein in para 16 the factum of the petitioner's working since 2005 has not been denied. In respect of the amount paid to the petitioner, reliance has been placed on the Government Order dated 24th April, 2010, wherein the wages for the cook, providing mid-day-meal, is fixed as Rs. 1000/-per month, out of which 75% is to be borne by the Central Government and rest 25% is to be borne by the State Government.
4. The counsel for the respondents states that w.e.f. 09th March, 2019 the amount payable to the cooks has been enhanced from Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 1500/-per month. He has also brought on record a Government Order dated 14th August, 2019 to the effect that new incumbents are to be appointed as cook for providing mid-day-meal and preference would be given to the persons whose one of the child is studying in the school in question, and thus argues that as the petitioner's child is not studying in the school, she could not be considered for fresh appointment.
5. The present case highlights the manner in which the practice of Forced Labour is prevalent in the country even after 70 years of independence and the helpless people similar to the petitioner continue to suffer the exploitation willingly.
6. Part III of the Constitution of India provides for the freedoms to which are guaranteed to every citizen of this country. The present case is specifically concerned with Article 14, Article 21 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India, more particularly Article 23 .In the context of the facts of the present case what is to be considered is that whether the payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per month is an other form of Forced Labour as barred by virtue of Article 23 of the Constitution of India or not.
7. The question of “other forms of Forced Labour” as finds place in Article 23 of the Constitution of India came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the first time in the case of People’s Union For Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 235, wherein in the form of Public Interest Litigation, the plight of the workers engaged in the construction for the Asian Games, was highlighted before the Supreme Court. The contention before the Supreme Court was that the workers employed for constructions were being paid wages which were less than the minimum wages prescribed.
8. The Supreme Court specifically considered the scope of Article 23 and recorded as under:-
“12. Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right in the following terms:
"23. Prohibition of tra
