Holding

The matter is not one of regularisation; a committee must be constituted to rationalise wages and formulate a scheme without regularising the workers, and the High Court’s order is not to be given effect.

Summary

The case concerned daily‑rated (casual) workers at Marathwada Agricultural University who claimed that, because their qualifications, duties and responsibilities were identical to those of permanent staff, they were entitled to the same wages. The Bombay High Court held that the university was exploiting the workers and directed that they be paid wages calculated as basic pay (minimum of the pay‑scale) plus dearness allowance divided by 26 or 30 days. The university appealed, arguing that the workers were seasonal and that the issue was not one of regularisation. The Supreme Court held that the dispute was not about regularising the workers but about determining a rational wage scheme; therefore a committee should be constituted to examine parity, formulate a wage scheme without regularising the workers, and submit its report to the State Government. The High Court’s order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether daily‑rated workers are entitled to wage parity with permanent workers under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Minimum Wages Act.
Whether the question before the Court is one of regularisation of casual workers.
Whether the Court should direct a wage‑rationalisation scheme through a committee rather than direct payment of specific wages.
Whether the High Court’s direction on wage payment is binding on the parties.

Legislation cited

Subjects

parity of wagescasual workersregularisationwage rationalisationcommitteeIndustrial Disputes ActMinimum Wages Actlabour exploitation

Judgment

A MARATHWADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
v. --4-

MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPITH, M.S.K.S. AND ORS.

AUGUST 29, 2007

B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANDS.ff. KAPADIA,JJ.]

labour laws:

Industrial Disputes Act, I947:
c
Parity in wages-Casual workers vis-a-vis regular workers-Denial of
appropriate wages to casual workers-Challenge to-Allowed by High
Court-On appeal, Held: Question is not of regularization-In order to
determine wages to be paid to the casual workers, a Committee need to be
constituted for the purpose of rationalization of wages-The committee to
D formulate a Scheme relating to the amount to be paid to the workmen
without regularizing them and also to examine the question of parity of the
wages-Recommendations of the Committee has to be acted upon by the
State Government after obtaining view of all the concerned parties-Order
of the High Court shall not be given effect to.
E
Respondent-workers Union filed writ petitions before the High Court
for appropriate directions to the employer-University for payment of wages to
daily rated workers as per provision of the Minimum Wages Act It was alleged
that qualification, nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the daily rated
labourers are same as that of permanent labourers employed by the University,
F but they have been paid far less wages than the emoluments which were being -(
paid to permanent workers. The High Court held that denial of the appropriate
wages to the daily-rated workers amounted to exploitation of labour and directed
the appellant that the daily rated workers were to be paid wages at the rate of
basic pay at the minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowance divided by
26. Hence the present appeals.
G
Appellant-employer contended that the workers were seasonal workers
and the question of their regularization does not arise in view of the judgment
of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors,. '':>-

H 548
MARA THWADA AGRI. UNI. v. MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPITH 549

Respondents submitted that there is no question of regularization but A
of parity of pay.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A Committee should be constituted for the purpose of
rationalization of the wages to be paid to the workers. In the present case, the B
question really is not of regularization. The more important factor is that the
committee should hear the view of the parties and formulate a scheme relating
to the amount to be paid to the workman without them being regularized. It
shall also examine whether there is any necessity for parity of the wages,
taking into account the norms relating to the method of requirement, the C
seasonal nature of the employment, if any.
(Para 6 and 7) (551-C; 553-B)

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 4
sec 1 relied on.
1.2. The committee, as constituted, in essence would be an equivalance
committee. The report shall be given to the State Government within a period
of four months from date of constitution of the committee.
[Para 8) (553-D)

1.3. The State Government then shall take necessary action on the basis E'
of the recommendation, after obtaining the view of the University and after
giving all concerned parties an opportunity of stating their views.
(Para 9) (553-E)

2. The order of the High Court shall not be given effect to. F,
(Para 9) (55:\-E)

CIVIL APP.ELLA TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4454-4466 of
2000.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.5.2000 of the High Court of G
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 686of1988,
4002of1991, 1202,1032, 1033, 947, 934 & 547of1990, 35 ofl992, 615, 377, 12
of 1993 & 578 of 1986.

V.A.Mohta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary and Nilkanth
Nayak for the Appellants. H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A S.K. Dholakia and Jaideep Gupta, Gopal Balwant Sathe, S.S. Shinde,
V.N.Raghupathy, S.V. Deshpande, Shivaji M. Jadhav, T. Raja and Dr. Kailash
Chand for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. l. The present appeals are directed against
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Several Writ
Petitions were disposed of by the High Court. These writ petitions were filed
either by the Unions of the workers of the Marathwada Agricultural University
(hereinafter referred to as the 'University') or by the employees of the University
C against the State of Maharashtra and against the University. The primary
grievance was that qualification, nature of work, duties and responsibilities
of the work of labourers who were daily rated labourers are same as that of
permanent labourers employed by the University. Even then the daily rated
workers were getting far less wages than the emoluments which were being
paid to permanent labourers. It was also submitted that the Maharashtra
D Mumbai Wages Commission constituted under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
had fixed the rate of wages depending upon the zones in the Marathwada
region. But the University paid these daily rated workers far less.

2. The High Court held that denial of the appropriate wages to the daily-
E rated workers amounted to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot
take advantage of its dominant position by forcing them to work as casual
labourers on starvation wages. Therefore, it was directed that the daily rated
workers were to be paid wages with effect from lst May, 1988 at the rate of
basic pay i.e. at the minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowance divided
F by 26.

3. The directions in essence were as follows:

"Therefore it is being directed that if the daily rated workers are
being given paid weekly off, then they be paid the wages at the rate
of basic pay (at the minimum of the pay scale) plus dearness allowance
G divided by 30; and if paid weekly off is not being given to the daily
rated workers, then they be paid wages at the rate of basic pay (at
the minimum' of the pay scale) plus dearness allowance divided by 26.
Such payment should be on the basis of the categories of the daily
rated workers, such as, skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, as the case
H may be."
MARATIIWADA AGRI. UNI. v. MARATIIWADAKRISID VIDYAPITH [PASAYAT,J.) 551

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workers were A
seasonal workers and the question of regularization does not arise in view of
what has been stated by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006] 4 SCC 1.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted
that there is no question of regularization but of parity of pay. A dispute has B
been raised by the appellant that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
the 'ID Act') was not applicable because the University was not an industry.
It was also submitted that the High Court's direction is to work out applicable
norms.

6. Considering the peculiar nature of the controversy, we feel that a
c
committee should be constituted for the purpose of rationalization of the
wages to be paid to the concerned workers. In Uma Devi's case (supra) in
paras 20 & 21 it was noted as follows:

"The decision in Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wage p
Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka, [1990] 2 SCC 396 dealt with
a scheme framed by the State of Kamataka, though at the instance of
the Court. The scheme was essentially relating to the application of
the concept of equal pay for equal work hut it also provided for
making permanent, or what it called regularization, without keeping_
the distinction in mind, of employees who had been appointed ad hoc,. E
casually, temporarily or on daily-wage basis. In other words, employees
who had been appointed without following the procedure established
by law for such appointments. This Court, at the threshold, stated
that it should individualise justice to suit a given situation. With
respect it is not possible to accept the statement, unqualified as it F
appears to be. This Court is not only the constitutional court, it is also
the highest court in the country, the final court of appeal. By virtue
of Article 141 of the Constitution, what this Court lays down is the
law of the land. Its decisions are binding on all the. courts. Its main
role is to interpret the constitutional and other statutory provisions
bearing in mind the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution. We 0
have given unto ourselves a system of governance by rule of law. The
role of the Supreme Court is to render justice according to law. As one
jurist put it, the Supreme Court is expected to decide questions of law
for the country and not to decide individual cases without reference
to such principles of law. Consistency is a virtue. Passing orders not H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R

A consistent with its own decisions on law, is hound to send out
confusing signals and usher in judicial chaos. Its role, therefore, is
really to interpret the law and decide cases coming before it, according
to.law. Orders which are inconsistent with the legal conclusions arrived
at by the court in the selfsame judgment not only create confusion
but also tend to usher in arbitrariness highlighting the statement, that
B equity tends to vary with the Chancellor's foot.

In Dharwad case (supra) this Court was actually dealing with the
question of "equal pay for equal work" and had directed the State of
Kamataka to frame a scheme in that behalf. In para 17 of the judgment
(in SCC), this Court stated that the precedents obliged the State of
c Kamataka to regularise the services of the casual or daily/monthly-
rated employees and to make them the same payment as regular
employees were getting. Actually, this Court took note ofthe argument
of counsel for the State that in reality and as a matter of statecraft,
implementation of such a direction was an ec~nomic impossibility and
D at best only a scheme could be framed. Thus a 'scheme for absorption
of casual/daily-rated employees appointed on or before 1-7-1984 was
framed and accepted. ~he economic consequences of its direction
were taken note of by this Court in the following words: (SCC pp. 408-
09, para24)

E "24. We are alive to the position that the scheme which we have
finalised is not the ideal one but as we have already stated, it is .
the obligation of the court to individualise justice to suit a given
situation in a set of facts that are placed before it. Under the
scheme of the Constitution the purse remains in the hands of the
executive. The legislature of the State controls the Consolidated
F Fund out of which the expenditure to be incurred, in giving effect
to the scheme, will have to be met. The flow into the Consolidated
Fund depends upon the policy of taxation depending perhaps on
the capacity of the payer. Therefore, unduly burdening the State
for implementing' the constitutional obligation forthwith would
G create problems which the State may not be able to stand. We
have, therefore, made our directions with judicious restraint with
the hope and trust that both parties would appreciate and
understand the situation. The instrumentality of the State must
realize that it is charged with a big trust. The money that flows
into the Consolidated Fund and constitutes the resources of the
H
)

MARATHWADAAGRI. UNI. v. MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPITH [PASAYAT, J.J 553

State comes from the people and the welfare expenditure that is A
meted out goes from the same Fund back to the people. May be
that in every situation·the.saij'\e taxpayer is not the beneficiary.
That is an incident of taxation and a necessary concomitant of
living within a welfare society."

7. But the question really is not of regularization. The more important B
factor is that the committee should hear the view of the parties and formulate
a scheme relating to the amount 'to be paid to the workman without them
being regularized. It shall also examine whether there is any necessity for
parity of the wages, taking into account t~e riorms relating to the method of
requirement, the seasonal nature of the employment, if any.
c
8. The committee ·shall consist of Smt. M.H. Pandit, Joint Secretary,.
Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as a representative for the State
Government and Shri Udhav, Joint Secretary of the Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar
Karamchari Union and the University shall nominate two persons who have
expertise in financial matters. The committee in essence would be an D
equivalance committee. The report shall be given to the State Government
within a period of four months from date of constitution of the committee.

9. ·The State Government then shall take necessary action on the basis
of the recommendation, after obtaining the view of the University and after
giving all concerned parties an opportunity of stating their views. The order E
of the High Court shall not be given effect to in view of the directions as
contained above.

10. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals allowed. F