IMPORTANT POINT
Right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 – Rule 11 – Contempt of court – Precise submission is that once they are conferred status of permanent employee by court and that they are entitled to regular pay attached to said post – Petitioners were initially engaged on daily wage basis – Their engagement was also done without following any selection procedure – Initial engagement of these petitioners was not against regular vacancies – Normally, in such a situation even if these persons, because of their long service and also on assumption that they are discharging same duties as discharged by regular employees, such employees can claim salary which is being paid to regular employees holding similar posts on principles of 'equal pay for equal work' – A 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of said pay-scale with no increments – It is only regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in pay-scale – In some cases, on earlier occasions, State Government while fixing pay scale, granted increments as well – However, if some persons are given benefit wrongly, that cannot form basis for claiming same relief – Contempt Petitions dismissed. (Paras 3, 12, 23, 24 and 25)
       (B) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right to equality – Right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms. (Para 24)
       Facts of Case:
       Petitioners who have filed these contempt petitions were engaged by the State of Madhya Pradesh on different dates on different posts but all of them were engaged as daily wagers. They continued as daily wagers for long spell of time. According to the petitioners, in terms of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Environment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963, they became entitled to be classified as 'permanent employees'. However, their demand for classification as permanent employees was not acceded to by the State, which inaction of the State Government provoked some of these employees to raise the industrial dispute for their classification which resulted into awards of the labour court directing their classification as 'permanent'. Petitioners are contending that pay fixation has not been done as per the orders of this Court. They pleaded that fixation of pay at the minimum of the pay-scale is uncalled for and does not amount to complying with the directions of the Court in full measure.
       Findings of Court:
       It is somewhat puzzling as to whether employee, on getting designation of 'permanent employee' can be treated as 'regular' employee. This answer does not flow from reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally, a person who is known as 'permanent employee' would be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after completing six months' service an employee gets right to be treated as 'permanent employee'. Moreover, this Court has drawn a distinction between 'permanent employee' and 'regular employee'. (Para 21)
       Result : Contempt Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

All the petitioners who have filed these contempt petitions were engaged by the State of Madhya Pradesh on different dates on different posts but all of them were engaged as daily wagers. They continued as daily wagers for long spell of time. According to the petitioners, in terms of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Environment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963, they became entitled to be classified as 'permanent employees'. However, their demand for classification as permanent employees was not acceded to by the State, which inaction of the State Government provoked some of these employees to raise the industrial dispute for their classification which resulted into awards of the labour court directing their classification as 'permanent'. The labour court also held that on their classification as permanent, they would be entitled to the pay-scale of permanent post from dates specified in the award. Appeals were filed by the State against those orders which were dismissed by the industrial court and writ petitions also came to be dismissed by the High Court. This resulted in passing of the orders by the concerned authorities in the State Government classifying these petitioners as permanent employees. It was also ordered that they shall be entitled to minimum pay as fixed by the Labour Commission. This led to another round of litigation as the petitioners claimed that on their classification as 'permanent' to their respective posts they were entitled to receive the pay-scale attached to the said posts. These reliefs were granted to them by the labour court against which appeal preferred before the industrial court and the writ petition before the High Court were also dismissed. In all these cases, thereafter, special leave petitions were filed which were dismissed by this Court by common order dated 21st January, 2015. This order reads as under:

“Delay condoned.

Dismissed.

We direct the State Government to implement the order(s) passed by the High Court within eight months' time from today. If for any reason, the petitioner-State does not implement the order(s) passed by the High Court, the respondents are at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing contempt petition(s).”

2. The State Government has passed the orders fixing the pay of these petitioners at the minimum of the regular pay-scale attached to the respective posts. To demonstrate, by way of example, in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat, who was engaged as a daily wager, the pay is fixed at Rs. 15330/-in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200/-attached to the said post. Break up of the aforesaid salary fixing is as under:

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
2(i)	Minimum in the Regular pay scale granted vide order dated 11.03.2016 (per month)	5200/-
2(ii)	Grade pay (per month)	1800/-
2(iii)	D.A. (per month)	8330/-
2(iv)	Total salary and other benefits in hand (i+ii+iii) per month	15330/-

At the time of passing the order, he was getting monthly wage of Rs. 11,300/-as the daily wager. His salary, therefore, stands enhanced of Rs. 4030/-. In addition, he is given arrears in the sum of Rs. 5,93,887/-. In similar manner, pay of all the petitioners has been fixed.

3. The petitioners are, however, not satisfied with the aforesaid fixation and contended that the pay fixation has not been done as per the orders of this Court. The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is also categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay-scale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post. In other words, they pleaded that fixation of pay at the minimum of the pay-scale is uncalled for and does not amount to complying with the directions of the C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 990

IMPORTANT POINTRight to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms.