AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1987 INSC 361
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1987 INSC 361
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arose from a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the U.P Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association, whose members were contingent paid staff in the Income Tax Department performing work described as that of Class IV employees. The Association complained that, despite rendering service for a large number of years, the Department had not regularised or absorbed them into Class IV service and continued to pay them daily-rated wages lower than the salary and allowances paid to regular Class IV employees.

The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay wages and allowances equivalent to those paid in corresponding regular posts and to regularise service. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents, who did not deny the wage differential and referred to certain government orders providing for regularisation on specified terms and conditions.

At admission, the Court directed listing after disposal of Writ Petitions Nos. 373 and 302 of 1986 concerning daily-rated casual labour in the Posts and Telegraph Department, as the questions were “almost the same.” After judgment in that matter, the Court proceeded to decide the present petition by applying the same approach and directions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether contingent paid staff in the Income Tax Department performing Class IV work are entitled to wages equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workers in corresponding cadres (along with corresponding dearness allowances), rather than lower daily-rated wages.
  2. Whether the respondents should be directed to formulate a rational scheme for absorbing/regularising contingent paid staff who have been continuously working for more than one year.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122 Directions that casual labourers be paid wages equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workers in corresponding cadres (without increments), with corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance; and a further direction to prepare a rational scheme to absorb, as far as possible, casual labourers continuously working for more than one year. The Court found the present facts “similar” and, being dissatisfied with the existing absorption scheme (described as hedged by many conditions), issued the “same directions” to the Income Tax Department contingent paid staff, with a specified effective date for wage parity and a direction to prepare a rational absorption scheme.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated the issues as substantially covered by its earlier decision concerning daily-rated labour in the Posts and Telegraph Department, noting that the questions involved were “almost the same” and that the factual circumstances were similar.

On the wage claim, the respondents did not dispute that contingent paid staff were being paid daily wages lower than regular employees. The Court therefore aligned relief with the prior precedent, directing wages at rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the corresponding regular pay scales, without increments, together with corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, while continuing other benefits already enjoyed.

On regularisation/absorption, the Court considered the counter-affidavit and noted the existence of government orders providing for absorption, but observed that these orders were “hedged in by a number of conditions.” The Court also recorded that many employees had worked on daily wages for nearly eight years or more and stated it was “not satisfied with the scheme which is now in force.” For these stated reasons, and following the rationale of the earlier decision, it directed the respondents to prepare a rational absorption scheme for those continuously working for more than one year.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED AND DISPOSED OF (NO COSTS): The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to:

  • Pay wages to contingent paid staff of the Income Tax Department throughout India who are doing the work of Class IV employees at rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed workers in corresponding cadres, without increments, with effect from December 1, 1986.
  • Pay corresponding Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance, and continue extending other benefits already being enjoyed by such workmen.
  • Prepare a scheme “on a rational basis” for absorbing, as far as possible, contingent paid staff who have been continuously working for more than one year as Class IV employees in the Income Tax Department.

The direct implication is that the affected contingent paid staff became entitled to minimum-scale wage parity (without increments) from the specified date, along with corresponding allowances, and the respondents were obligated to formulate a rational absorption scheme for eligible workers. The opinion applies and follows the cited Supreme Court precedent rather than articulating any new legal principle.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    U.P Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

    2. The petitioner in this case is the U.P Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association. The members of the said Association, as the name of the Association itself suggests, are the contingent paid staff in the Income Tax Department. Their complaint is that even though they have been rendering the service as Class IV employees in the Income Tax Department for a large number of years, the Income Tax Department has not taken steps to regularise their services and to absorb them as members of the Class IV services and that they are being paid wages as daily rated labourers lower than the salary and allowances which the Class IV employees of the Department have been drawing. They pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay them the same salary and allowances which are paid to the employees of the Department in corresponding posts and also for regularising their service. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents do not deny that the contingent paid staff are being paid daily wages lower than what is being paid to regular employees. It also refers to certain government orders providing for regularisation under certain terms and conditions.

    3. When this petition came up for admission the court directed that this case should be listed after the disposal of the Writ Petitions Nos. 373 and 302 of 1986 instituted by the daily rated casual labour employed in the Posts and Telegraph Department, since the questions involved in this case and in those two writ petitions were almost the same. By its judgment dated October 27, 1987 in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122, WPs 373 and 302 of 1986 this Court has issued the following directions as regards the claim of the daily rated workmen involved therein for higher wages:

    “We accordingly direct the Union of India and the other respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as casual labourers belonging to the several categories of employees referred to above in the Posts & Telegraphs Department at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increments with effect from February 5, 1986 on which date the first of the above two petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 302 of 1986 was filed. The petitioners are entitled to corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, if any, payable thereon. Whatever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the casual labourers shall continue to be extended to them.”

    4. On the claim for regularisation of the services of the workmen involved in the abovementioned case, this Court issued the following direction:

    “We, therefore, direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Telegraphs Department.”

    5. The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the daily rated labour in the Posts and Telegraph Department. We have carefully considered the pleas in the counter-affidavit. The government orders providing for the absorption of the contingent paid staff are hedged in by a number of conditions. We also find that many such employees have been working on daily wages for nearly eight years and more. We are not satisfied with the scheme which is now in force. We are, therefore, of the view that in this case also we should issue the same directions as in the above decision for the reasons given by the court in the above decision. We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as the contingent paid staff of the Income Tax Department throughout India, doing the work of Class IV employees at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres, without any increments with effect from December 1, 1986. Such workmen are also entitled to corresponding Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance payable thereon. Whatever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the said workmen shall continue to be extended to them. We further direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the contingent paid staff of the Income Tax Department who have been continuously working for more than one year as Class IV employees in the Income Tax Department.

    6. This petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    U.P Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union Of India And Others
    (Dec 4, 1987)