- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Kala Devi Petitioner v. State Of H.P And Others S
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner had been engaged by the respondent as a "School Mother" on a temporary/part‑time basis. She contended that although employed temporarily she was entitled to wages payable to Class‑IV employees of the State. The respondents did not dispute her selection or the formalities of appointment and admitted that she was initially paid Rs. 30 per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 75 and then Rs. 110 in 1983. The State of Himachal Pradesh had issued circulars/notifications under the Minimum Wages Act fixing wages payable to workers employed by the State. The petitioner worked for at least 3 to 4 hours a day and, according to the opinion, worked the same time/duration as regularly appointed employees but did not receive the same scale of salary. The petitioner has retired and sought relief for past underpayment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a temporary/part‑time employee (a "School Mother") who worked comparable hours to regular employees is entitled to wages fixed under notifications/circulars issued under the Minimum Wages Act, and therefore to arrears calculated on that basis.
- Whether principles and benefits under the Minimum Wages Act and related constitutional protections (including Article 21 and Article 23 as discussed) apply to such temporary or daily‑waged employees so as to warrant a direction for payment of minimum wages and arrears.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Position
- The petitioner asserted that, despite temporary engagement as "School Mother", she was entitled to wages payable to Class‑IV employees of the State.
- She had worked part time (at least 3–4 hours per day) and performed duties comparable in time/duration to regular employees.
- Her existing payment (Rs. 110 per month) was inadequate to live with human dignity and therefore contrary to constitutional protections.
Respondents' Position
- The respondents admitted the appointment, the formalities of selection, and the historical payments made to the petitioner (Rs. 30, later Rs. 75, then Rs. 110 in 1983).
- They indicated that the post of "School Mother" was created on fixed pay and observed there were only 66 such posts in the State, describing it as a "dying cadre" on fixed pay.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union, AIR 1963 SC 806 | Object of the Minimum Wages Act is to prevent exploitation and to fix minimum wages where wages are inadequate; appropriate Government's power to fix rates does not authorize unlawful discrimination between employers. | Quoted to underline the Act's protective object and to support the view that minimum wages are intended to prevent exploitation of workers. |
| Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association, Nagpur v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur, AIR 1960 SC 1068 | Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are intended to achieve social justice for workmen; the Court should adopt a beneficent rule of construction in construing the Act. | Relied upon to justify a beneficent (protective) approach when applying principles of the Minimum Wages Act to the petitioner's case. |
| Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, AIR 1968 SC 271 | Held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order passed under the Minimum Wages Act. | Cited to show that civil remedies remain available and to situate the petitioner's forum for relief. |
| People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 | Casual/temporary labourers are entitled to benefits of relevant labour laws including the Minimum Wages Act; non‑enforcement of labour statutes can amount to denial of fundamental rights (Article 14, Article 21, Article 23). | Used to support application of labour protections and constitutional dimensions (e.g., Article 21 and Article 23) to temporary workers like the petitioner. |
| People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 494 | See related holdings regarding entitlement of casual labourers to labour law benefits and the constitutional enforceability of those protections. | Reinforced the proposition that non‑observance of labour statutes can implicate fundamental rights and that temporary workers may be covered by such protections. |
| Mukesh Advani v. State Of M.P., (1985) 3 SCC 162 | Directed release of benefits to bonded labour as envisaged in the Minimum Wages Act. | Cited to show that the Court has mandated application of Minimum Wages Act benefits in remedial contexts for vulnerable workers. |
| Special Works and Research Centre through Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (Supp) S.C.C. 561 | Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were made applicable to workers engaged in drought relief operations. | Demonstrated the Act's applicability beyond conventional scheduled industries, supporting extension of its benefits to various categories of workers. |
| Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, (1995) 5 SCC 210 | Temporary daily‑waged employees were not entitled to parity in pay with regular employees, but were entitled to minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act as prevalent in the locality. | Applied to justify awarding minimum wages (rather than parity) to temporary/daily‑waged employees such as the petitioner. |
| State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, (2003) 1 SCC 250 | Directed payment under the Minimum Wages Act to daily‑waged employees seeking parity with regular employees. | Used as supporting authority for granting minimum wages to daily‑waged workers even when parity is not granted. |
| Airfreight Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567 | Minimum Wages Act aims to prevent exploitation; capacity of employer is irrelevant when fixing minimum wages; minimum wage must ensure sustenance and preserve worker efficiency. | Relied upon to emphasize that minimum wages are welfare‑oriented and are to be fixed without regard to employer's capacity, reinforcing the protective approach for workers like the petitioner. |
| Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. The State of Mysore, (1996) 3 SCC 84 | Upheld the legislative power of the Government to fix minimum wages. | Referred to confirm the State's authority to prescribe minimum wages which the court could enforce in the petitioner's favour. |
| Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCC 525 | Every person who provides labour is entitled at least to the minimum wage; payment less than minimum wage can be complained of as violation of Article 23. | Quoted to support the proposition that underpayment below statutory minimum implicates fundamental rights and warrants judicial remedy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded from undisputed factual findings: the petitioner was appointed as "School Mother", her selection and appointment formalities were not contested, and the respondents admitted the historic payments made to her (Rs. 30; later Rs. 75; Rs. 110 in 1983).
The court noted that the State had issued circulars/notifications under the Minimum Wages Act fixing wages payable to workers, and observed that the petitioner worked part time for at least three to four hours daily — a period comparable to regularly appointed employees — yet did not receive equivalent pay.
Applying constitutional principles, the court emphasized Article 21 (right to life with human dignity) and observed that an employee is entitled to minimum wages that are fair, just and reasonable. While periodic revision is not a fundamental right, the court regarded it as the petitioner's legal right to receive wages that conform to the minimum wages fixed by the State's notifications.
The court reviewed and applied established precedents concerning the object and purpose of the Minimum Wages Act: preventing exploitation, adopting a beneficent rule of construction, and extending statutory protections and minimum wage benefits to casual/temporary/daily‑waged workers in appropriate circumstances. The opinion expressly states that the Court did not decide the legal question of applicability of the Minimum Wages Act in abstract, but applied the Act's principles and benefits to this case.
Finding a "lackadaisical approach" and "apathy" on the part of the State in failing to enhance wages to a level that would permit the petitioner to live with human dignity, the court concluded judicial interference was warranted as a rare exception. On that basis, the court directed equitable relief in the form of payment of wages calculated in proportion to the hours of service at rates fixed under the Government's notifications/circulars under the Minimum Wages Act for the period in which the petitioner rendered services.
Procedural and remedial directions followed: arrears to be disbursed within three months, failing which interest at 9% would accrue; and costs were quantified and awarded to the petitioner.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The petition is DISPOSED OF with directions that the respondents pay the petitioner wages proportionate to her hours of service at the rates fixed under government notifications/circulars issued under the Minimum Wages Act for the period she rendered service. Arrears are to be disbursed within three months from the date of the order, failing which interest at 9% will accrue. The petitioner is also awarded costs of Rs. 11,000.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: the respondent State must calculate and pay the petitioner's arrears based on notified minimum wage rates proportionate to her hours of service, pay interest if payment is delayed beyond three months, and pay quantified costs.
- Scope of precedent: the Court expressly did not undertake a formal adjudication on the abstract question of the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to the post; rather, it applied the Act's principles and authorities to grant relief in the particular factual circumstances. The opinion applies established precedents to extend minimum wage benefits to a temporary worker in this factual context; it does not purport to lay down a novel or broad new principle beyond those applications.
This summary is prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond what the opinion states.
Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was engaged as “School Mother” with the respondent. It is her grievance that even though she was employed on temporary basis she was entitled to the wages payable to class-IV employees of the State.
That the petitioner was engaged as “School Mother” is not in dispute. Her selection is in compliance of all formalities, in accordance with the rules has also not been disputed by the respondents in the return. The respondents in their reply have also admitted that initially she was appointed at a fixed payment of Rs. 30/- per month which was later enhanced to Rs. 75/- and Rs. 110/- in the year 1983.
Undisputedly the State of Himachal Pradesh has issued various circulars/notifications under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the wages payable to the workers employed by the State. The petitioner is admitted to have worked on part time basis for atleast 3 to 4 hours in a day. Even though the petitioner was working for the same time/duration as the regularly appointed employees, but however she was not given the same scale of salary for which she was working. Keeping in view the various circulars issued by the State her wages ought to have been enhanced with the passage of time. Regretfully same was not done, perhaps for the reason that in the State of Himachal Pradesh there were only 66 posts of “School Mothers” which even according to the respondent was a dying cadre on fixed pay. The said post was created in the schools on fixed pay.
The petitioner could not have sustained herself on meager payment of Rs. 110/- per month. It is the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that no person is to be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Right to live is something more as mere survival or animal existence. It definitely includes the right to live with human dignity. The employee is definitely entitled to minimum wages or wages which are fair, just and reasonable. It is not the petitioner's fundamental right to have periodical revision of wages but definitely it is petitioner's legal right to have such wages which are considered to be minimum wage as fixed by the respondents in terms of its various circulars. Rs. 110/- per month is too inadequate for a person to live life with human dignity. The petitioner was assigned with the duty of taking care of young children. She played a major role in the overall development, mental and physical of the future generation who ultimately have to take over the reigns of the nation. I am conscious of the fact that fixation of pay scale/salary depends upon various factors and attending circumstances and it is solely the prerogative of the government but however the present case is a rare exception in which judicial interference is warranted due to lackadaisical approach adopted by the respondent/State. The State may not have adopted unfair labour practice but definitely has not shown concern for enhancing the wages so as to make a person sustain himself. The apathy on the part of the State is appalling. Compassion and empathy ought to have been shown in this regard.
The constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union, AIR 1963 SC 806, has held as under:-
“The object of the Act is to prevent exploitation of the workers, and for that purpose it aims at fixation of minimum wages which the employers must pay. The Legislature undoubtedly intended to apply the Act to those industries or localities in which by reason of causes such as unorganized labour or absence of machinery for regulation of wages, the wages paid to workers were, in the light of the general level of wages, and subsistence level, inadequate.”
“Further, power to fix minimum rates of wages does not by itself invest the appropriate Government with authority to make unlawful discrimination between employers in different industries.”
Further in Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association, Nagpur v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur, AIR 1960 SC 1068, has held as under:-
“It is true that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are intended to achieve the object of doing social justice to workmen employed in the scheduled employments by prescribing minimum rates of wages for them, and so, in construing the said provisions, the Court should adopt what is sometimes described as a beneficent rule of construction”
As to whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order passed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or not stands settled by the Apex Court in The Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, AIR 1968 SC 271, wherein it was held that the Civil Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 and People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 494, the Apex Court has held that casual labourers/workers temporarily employed by the contractors in connection with construction work were entitled for benefit of relevant Labour and Industrial laws, including Minimum Wages Act. While dealing with the issue of maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with regard to enforceability of relevant Labour/Industrial Laws the Court held as under:-
“The essential requirement for maintaining the petition under Article 32 for breach of any fundamental right may be provided by the breach of the statutory laws. Non-enforcement of Equal Remuneration Act amounts to denial of equality under Article 14. So also the non-observance of the Contract Labour (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 amounts to violation of Article 21 inasmuch as these Acts are clearly intended to ensure basic human dignity to the workmen and the State cannot deprive anyone of this precious and invaluable right because no procedure by which such deprivation may be effected can ever be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. The non-payment of minimum wage is a breach of the fundamental right under Article 23.”
The Apex Court in Mukesh Advani v. State Of M.P, (1985) 3 SCC 162, directed the release of benefits to the bonded labour in Raisen Mine in Madhya Pradesh as envisaged in Minimum Wages Act.
Further in Special Works and Research Centre through Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (Supp) S.C.C 561, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were also made applicable to workers engaged in drought relief operation.
Where the temporary daily waged employees were claiming parity and equal pay scale with regularly employed employees, the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, (1995) 5 SCC 210, held that even though the petitioners were not entitled for the parity in pay scale with regularly appointed employees, but, however, a direction was issued that the temporary daily waged employees be given minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as would be prevalent in the locality.
Even later on in State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, (2003) 1 SCC 250, the Apex Court directed payment under the Minimum Wages Act to daily waged employees who were seeking parity with regularly appointed employees.
The Apex Court in Airfreight Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567, has held that what the Act purports to achieve is to prevent exploitation of labour and for that purpose authorizes the appropriate Government to take steps to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the scheduled industries. So, in prescribing the minimum wage rates the capacity of the employer need not be considered. What is being prescribed is minimum wage rates which a welfare State assumes every employer must pay before he employs labour. Since the capacity of the employer to pay is treated as irrelevant it is but right that no addition should be made to the components of the minimum wage which would take the minimum wage near the lower level of the fair wage, but the contents of this concept must ensure for the employee not only his sustenance and that of his family but must also preserve his efficiency as a worker. The Act contemplates that minimum wage rates should be fixed in the scheduled industries with the dual object of providing sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his family and preserving his efficiency as a worker.
In Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. The State of Mysore, (1996) 3 SCC 84, the Apex Court upheld the legislative power of the Government to fix minimum wages.
In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCC 525, the Apex Court held as under:
“Every person who provides labour or service to another is entitled at the least to the minimum wage and if anything less than the minimum wage is paid to him, he can complain of violation of his fundamental right under Article 23 and ask the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the breach of Article 23 may be abated.”
This Court has not gone into the question of applicability of the Minimum Wages Act but has only applied the principles and the benefits under the Act.
Under these circumstances it is directed that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner wages in proportion to the hours of her service on rates fixed under the notification/circulars issued by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act, for such period she rendered her services with the respondent/State. The petitioner has retired. The arrears shall be disbursed within a period of three months from today, failing which, thereafter she shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9%.
She shall also be entitled to costs quantified Rs. 11,000/-(Rupees eleven thousand only).
Petition is disposed of.
Alert