Case Note & Summary
The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat and other officials (appellants) against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018, which allowed the petition filed by the respondent, Ghelabhai Vajabhai Satiya. The respondent was a daily-wage worker employed under the Range Forest Officer, Vallabhipur Range, since 01.07.2010, engaged in maintenance of nurseries. He was paid on a piece-rate basis without minimum wages, allowances, or benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity, or leave. The respondent filed a petition seeking minimum wages, regular pay scale, and other benefits. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, directing the appellants to pay minimum wages and other benefits. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal. The court heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms. Aditi S. Raol for the respondent. The court examined the factual matrix and legal submissions. The court noted that the respondent was a daily-wage worker and not a regular employee. The court held that the respondent was entitled to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as he was performing skilled work. However, the court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle daily-wage workers to regular pay scales, as they are not similarly situated to regular employees. The court directed the appellants to pay the respondent minimum wages and other statutory benefits, but not regular pay scale or permanency. The court also directed the appellants to consider the respondent's case for regularization in accordance with law. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order of the learned Single Judge.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Daily-Wage Worker - Minimum Wages - The respondent, a daily-wage worker in the Forest Department, was entitled to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as he was engaged in skilled work of nursery maintenance and was not receiving minimum wages or any allowances. The court held that the State must ensure payment of minimum wages to all daily-wage workers. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - The respondent claimed equal pay with regular employees performing similar work. The court applied the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) and Article 14, but held that daily-wage workers are not entitled to regular pay scales unless they are regularized. The court directed payment of minimum wages and benefits but not regular pay scale. (Paras 11-20) C) Service Law - Regularization - The respondent sought regularization and regular pay scale. The court held that daily-wage workers cannot claim regularization or regular pay scale merely on the basis of length of service, as regularization is a policy matter. The court directed the appellants to consider the respondent's case for regularization in accordance with law. (Paras 21-27)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a daily-wage worker in the Forest Department is entitled to minimum wages, regular pay scale, and other benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity, and leave, and whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified. The respondent is entitled to minimum wages and other statutory benefits under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but not to regular pay scale or permanency. The appellants are directed to consider the respondent's case for regularization in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Minimum Wages Act
- 1948
- Equal Pay for Equal Work
- Article 14
- Article 16
- Article 21
- Article 23
- Article 39(d)
- Article 43
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Clause 15
