Equal pay for equal work mandates 1/30th minimum wages for long-term casual labours performing regular duties, prohibiting discrimination among similarly situated employees.

ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this OA, the applicants are seeking the following relief:

“……..declare the action of the respondents I not implementing the office order dated 26.12.2016 with regard to payment of the minimum wages to the casual labours with 1/30^th status (i.e.Rs.18,000/- + Darness Allowance) as per the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission is illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14& 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the minimum wages of Rs.18,000/- + dearness allowance every month as per the recommendation of the VII Central Pay Commission with all consequential benefits to the applicants in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Casual labours in Archeological Survey of India in different temples and monuments in Kurnool and Anantapur sub circles under the control of the 3^rd respondent. The majority of the applicants are working since 2009 and some of them are working since 2010 as Casual labours.

It is submitted that, the well-established principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is now part of the Indian Constitutional Law. When the applicants are working since several years and discharging the similar duties of regular employees, paying them lesser pay than the regular employees is violative of principle of equal pay for the equal work.

3. The applicants several times represented before the respondents requesting for payment of minimum wages and in spite of proceedings in December, 2016, the minimum wages are not paid to them. It is submitted that the respondents, being a model employer, are expected to act fairly, but unfortunately, the benefit is not extended to the applicants. Therefore, they are constrained to approach the Tribunal.

4. After Notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed detailed reply opposing the relief on the ground that the applicants were engaged as unskilled labours without due provision in the estimates framed for specific works and therefore, their engagement cannot be treated as appointment and hence their statement is strictly denied as they were not appointed after following due procedure for discharging regular nature of duties, against the vacant post.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the applicants has taken us through the order passed by this Tribunal in OA/214/2021 dated 30.09.2021 in the matter of T. Chudamani and Ors. Vs. Union of India Archeological Department. The matter has been considered at length and the Court observed in paras 7 (I) (II) (III) as follows:

“I. The dispute is about not paying 1/30^th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale to the applicants. Respondents’ state that the applicant were engaged for work of casual nature and that they were not engaged against any clear vacancy. Hence, the applicants have no right to seek temporary status. Wages were paid as specified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act and that they are not eligible for 1/30^th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale as per DOPT memo dated 7.6.1988. After 2017, the work of the casual labour has been outsourced by floating tenders. In the tender, terms and conditions were specified to safeguard the interests of the applicants as well as other casual labour working in the respondents organization.

II. However, we notice that the