1990 JTR(SC) 147
1992 4 SCC 114 ; 1992 SCC(L&S) 820
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sabysaschi Mukharji, CJI., K.N. Saikia, M.M. Punchhi, JJ.
VIJAY PAL SHARMA AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS
VERSUS
DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
I.A. No. 2 In Writ Petition No. 818 of decided on March 12, 1990.
Casual laborers eligible under an absorption scheme (having worked for one year or more and being fit) must be regularized and paid the minimum salary plus allowances equivalent to regular employees in comparable posts, rather than just the minimum wage.
(A) Service Law - Regularization of casual labourers - Absorption of casual labourers under a prepared scheme - Casual labourers who have worked for one year or more and are otherwise fit to be regularized shall be regularized within six months - Entitlement to salary or wages equivalent to the minimum salary paid to regular employees in comparable posts. (Para 1)
(B) Interpretation of 'salary or wages' - Clarification that the expression 'salary or wages' in the context of regularization of casual labourers means minimum salary plus allowances, and not merely the minimum wage. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Casual labourers working in a government department sought regularization and correct payment of wages based on a scheme effective from October 1, 1988. A dispute arose regarding whether the payment upon regularization should be the minimum wage or the minimum salary plus allowances of a regular employee.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the administration to absorb eligible casual labourers who had worked for one year or more within six months. It further clarified that the payment to be made is the minimum salary plus allowances.
Issues: Whether eligible casual labourers are entitled to regularization under the existing scheme and whether the term 'salary or wages' refers to minimum wage or minimum salary plus allowances.
Ratio Decidendi: Casual labourers meeting the criteria of the absorption scheme (one year of service and fitness) must be regularized and paid at the rate of minimum salary plus allowances of comparable regular posts.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
(B) Interpretation of 'salary or wages' - Clarification that the expression 'salary or wages' in the context of regularization of casual labourers means minimum salary plus allowances, and not merely the minimum wage. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Casual labourers working in a government department sought regularization and correct payment of wages based on a scheme effective from October 1, 1988. A dispute arose regarding whether the payment upon regularization should be the minimum wage or the minimum salary plus allowances of a regular employee.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the administration to absorb eligible casual labourers who had worked for one year or more within six months. It further clarified that the payment to be made is the minimum salary plus allowances.
Issues: Whether eligible casual labourers are entitled to regularization under the existing scheme and whether the term 'salary or wages' refers to minimum wage or minimum salary plus allowances.
Ratio Decidendi: Casual labourers meeting the criteria of the absorption scheme (one year of service and fitness) must be regularized and paid at the rate of minimum salary plus allowances of comparable regular posts.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Regularisation - The court applied the decision of this case to direct the Delhi Administration to absorb and regularise casual labourers in the Horticulture Department.
ORDER
1. Having considered the facts we are of the opinion that this matter is covered by the decision of the court entitled Niadar and Another v. Delhi Administration and Another ((1992) 4 SCC 112) which was decided on September 29, 1988. In terms thereof thus, we direct the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, which scheme has been made effective from October 1, 1988. In terms of the scheme, any casual labourer who has worked for one year or more in the Horticulture Department shall be regularised within a period of six months from today if such casual labourer is otherwise fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employee. On that footing each casual labourer working in the department shall get salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to be regular employee in comparable posts in the Horticulture Department.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the expression salary or wages used in Niadar case ((1992) 4 SCC 112) and which has been used instantly also has given rise to a doubt in the department as to whether on regularisation minimum wage is to be paid or minimum salary to the regular employee, and on that about Rs. 750 per month instead of Rs. 1100 per month has been paid to some of the employees. Learned counsel for the Delhi Administration disputes this fact and says that it was always meant and always shall mean that minimum salary plus allowances which comes to about Rs. 1100 has been paid to such employees and is otherwise payable. This clarifies the doubt expressed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. No costs.