Allahabad HC Upholds Minimum Wage Rights for Part-Time Police Station Sweepers, Rules Statutory Law Trumps Govt Orders

Allahabad, U.P. – In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of casual workers, the Allahabad High Court has declared that part-time sweepers engaged by the Uttar Pradesh Police are entitled to remuneration under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The bench, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.J. Munir , held that a statutory notification fixing minimum wages will prevail over a government executive order that set their pay at a mere Rs. 1,200 per month.

The court issued a mandamus directing the Director General of Police, U.P., and other senior officials to pay the petitioners minimum wages, including all arrears from their date of engagement, within six weeks.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by two sweepers, Gobinddas and Kaushla, who were engaged on a temporary basis at police stations in Lalitpur district since July 2022. The petitioners claimed they worked nearly full-time in two shifts but were compensated with a meager honorarium of Rs. 1,200 per month. They argued this amount was less than the wages paid under the MGNREGA scheme and violated their right to minimum wages for performing a "scheduled employment" under the 1948 Act.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners contended that they performed the same duties as other government sweepers and were entitled to minimum wages. They had made multiple representations to the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, and other authorities for an increase in their honorarium, but no action was taken.

State's Defense: The Superintendent of Police, in his affidavit, took the stand that the petitioners were not employees of the police department but were engaged as part-time labourers for approximately one hour of work daily. He argued that the Rs. 1,200 monthly honorarium was fixed as per a Government Order dated March 9, 2019. Crucially, the SP contended that since the petitioners were not formal employees, "there is no provision for paying them minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act."

Court's Legal Analysis and Reasoning

The court initially noted a significant factual dispute over the petitioners' working hours. To resolve this, it appointed the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lalitpur, as a Court Commissioner to conduct a local inspection. The Commissioner's report, based on witness statements, suggested the petitioners worked for 8-9 hours daily.

However, the High Court pivoted from the factual dispute to the core legal question: even if the petitioners are part-timers, are they entitled to minimum wages?

Justice Munir found the Superintendent of Police's legal argument to be "absolutely flawed." The court reasoned that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is specifically designed to protect workers hired from outside an establishment, whereas regular employees are governed by service rules.

The judgment highlighted key provisions of the Act:

- "Sweeping and cleaning" is listed as a "scheduled employment" under the Act.

- The State Government, as the controlling authority, qualifies as an "employer" under Section 2(e)(ii) of the Act.

- There was no notification exempting the police department from the Act's provisions under Section 26.

The court unequivocally stated that the Government Order of 2019, being a purely executive instruction, could not override the statutory notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act.

> "The Government Order dated 09.03.2019 is an executive order... It has to give way to the minimum wages fixed by a notification issued by the State Government under the Act of 1948, in case of a scheduled employment. The rates fixed by the notification under the Act of 1948 is statutory in character and would, therefore, prevail over the Government Order dated 09.03.2019, a purely executive order."

The court also relied on its previous decision in Amarjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and others (2022) , which had reached a similar conclusion for part-time sweepers in another government department.

The Final Verdict

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, holding that while the petitioners are part-time workers, they are unequivocally entitled to remuneration as per the minimum wages notified under the 1948 Act.

The court issued a mandamus directing the Director General of Police, U.P., the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, and the concerned Station House Officers to:

1. Calculate and pay the petitioners' remuneration in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

2. Clear all arrears from their date of engagement until the date of payment.

3. Complete the payment of arrears within six weeks.

4. Ensure future wages are paid according to the prevailing minimum wage rates, as revised from time to time.