PREM CHAND Vs. ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will decide Civil Revisions Nos. 507 of 1985 and 60 of 1986 filed respectively by Premchand Jain and Municipal Council, Udaipur and S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896 of 1986 filed by Premchand Jain by a common order as they arise from the same order of the District Judge, Udaipur dated August 9, 1985.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of these revision petitions and the writ petition may be narrated first. Premchand Jain was employed in daily wages in the construction department of Municipal Council, Udaipur on March 13, 1973 for a period of 28 days. However, Premchand Jain continued to be employed in the construction Department of the Municipal Council Udaipur by giving break of some days in between upto September 24, 1975 when his services were terminated by order No. 1779 dated September 24, 1975 with effect from that date. Even after periodical gaps Premchand Jain (hereinafter, for short' the petitioner') actually worked for 273 days in 1973, 336 days in 1974 and 253 days in 1975. The petitioner challenged the termination of his employment and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Judge, Udaipur who by his award dated September 20, 1983 enclosed as Anx. R. 6 to the writ petition held that the termination of the employment of the petitioner was illegal. It was ordered that the petitioner will be re-instated and would be treated to have continued in the employment of the Municipal Council, Udaipur continuously and would be paid his wages and other consequential benefits from the date of illegally termination of his employment (i. e. September 24, 1975) to the date of his reinstatement. After the decision of the Industrial Judge, the petitioner filed 8 separate applications before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages from September 24. 1975 to June 1984. After the award made by the Industrial Judge Jaipur, the petitioner was paid by the Municipal Council, Udaipur an amount of Rs. 15,076/- as wages for the said period. However, before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 58, 572. 49 According to him, he was governed by the Work Charge Rules of 1964. His contention was that as a matter of fact he had been employed on the post of Mistry from the very beginning. His further contention was that his services with the Municipal Council, Udaipur were governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan P. W. D. (B&r) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short, hereinafter "the Work Charge Rules" ). According to r. 3 of the Work Charge Rules, an employee in continuous service for 2 years or more was eligible for the status of semi-permanent employee and the employees who had been in service for 10 years were eligible for the status of permanent Work-charge employee provided their record of service was, in the opinion of the Competent Authorities, satisfactory. According to the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 15,904/- paid to him was calculated at a rate less than the rate at which he was being paid his wages before the termination of his employment. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act did not allow to the petitioner wages for the period from September 24, to June 1984 on the basis of the grade that may be admissible to him in accordance with the Work-charge Rules. The petitioner was required to submit a statement showing the due wages calculated on the basis of Basic Schedule of Rates of Public Works Department of the post of Mistry which was submitted by him. On that basis, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act directed the Municipal Council Udaipur to pay to the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 37, 862/- apart from counsel's fee and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 500/-within a period of 30 days with effect from the date of the order i. e. December 7. 1984. The petitioner was not awarded interest and no penalty was imposed on the Municipal Council. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1985. The Administrator Municipal Council, its Commissioner and Executive Engineer also filed an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter, for short 'the Act') before the District Judge. Both these appeals were heard and decided by the District Judge, Udaipur by a common order dated August 9, 1985. The District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned District Judge held that the Authority under the Act cannot go into the question whether the petitioner was entitled to semipermanent or permanent status under the Work-charge Rules and that he was only entitled to the wages which he was getting as Mistry at the time of termination of his employment. Calculated on that basis, the amount of wages came to Rs. 52,938/- out of which the petitioner had been paid the Municipal Council an amount of Rs. 15,076/- and he was only entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 37,862/- which had been awarded to him by the Authority under the Act. So far as the appeal of the Municipal Council Udaipur was concerned, it was dismissed by the District Judge as barred by limitation.

(3.) I may next deal with the writ petition No. 896 of 1986 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. In para 6 (c) of its memorandum of revision No. 60 of 1986, the Municipal Council has stated that at the time of termination of his employment, the petitioner was a casual labour and there could be only two eventualities, i. e. either he would have continued as casual labour and entitled to minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 9/- per day or he would have been made semi-permanent after two years and permanent after 10 years in accordance with the provisions of the Work-charge Service Rules 1964, which had been made applicable to the Municipal Council by a subsequent order. In that event he would have been entitled to the wages as provided under Work-charge Rules of 1964. However, it was also stated that in any case he was not entitled to the wages of Mistry.