The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to pay appropriate wages/salary to individuals who discharge duties as assigned by the employer, irrespective of the legality of the appointment. The judgment also emphasizes the prohibition of forced labour and the protection of individuals against it.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

Since the factual matrix and order under challenge in both the writ appeals are same, both the writ appeals are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. Present intra-court appeals preferred u/S. 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assail final order dated 28.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. 25969/2018 by learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition in question which had been filed praying for the following relief(s):

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and direct the respondent to make payment of salary to the petitioners from month of May 2018 till date and further be pleased to grant interest on it and any other relief Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and grounds mentioned above in the interest of justice."

3. The principal grievance of the appellants/petitioners was that they had not been paid salary from May 2018 on-wards despite the petitioners No. 1 & 2/appellants No. 1 & 2 in W.A. No. 1792/2019 having discharged their duties as pump operators and petitioner No. 3/appellant in W.A. No. 1793/2019 having discharged his duties as Tata Tipper driver with the employer-Municipal Council Pichore.

4. The respondent/employer before the writ court and also before this Court have raised objection on the appointment of appellants/petitioners being illegal and against provisions of statutory recruitment rules. By assigning this reason, the act of non-payment of salary is said to be justified.

5. Learned Single Judge considering that the issue involves disputed questions of fact disposed of the petition by relegating the appellants/petitioners to avail the remedy under the Industrial law for claiming wages.

6. A bare perusal of reply filed by the employer before the writ court reveals that the employer has not denied the fact that petitioners have discharged their duties from May 2018 on-wards but have come out with the objection of the appointment of petitioners being unlawful.

7. It is now well settled in service jurisprudence that if a person discharges duties as assigned by the employer then he has to be paid appropriate wages/salary commensurate to the quantum and quality of duties discharged irrespective of the legality of the appointment.

8. This Court is bolstered in it's view by the decision of Apex Court in case of People's Union For Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, 1982 (3) SCC 235, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

12. Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right in the following terms:

23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour- (1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

(2) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. Now many of the fundamental rights enacted in Part III operate as limitations on the power of the State and impose negative obligations on the State not to encroach on individual liberty and they are enforceable only against the State. But there are certain fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution which are enforceable against the whole world and they are to be found inter alia in Articles 17, 23 and 24. We have already discussed the true scope and ambit of Article 24 in an earlier portion of this judgment and hence we do not propose to say anything more about it. So also we need not expatiate on the proper meaning and effect of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 17 since we are not concerned with that Article in the present writ petition. It is Article 23 with which we are concerned and that Article is clearly designed to pr