Maithli Sharan, J. - (1.) This special appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.7.1993 passed by teamed singhe Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8024 of 1989, Ram Chandra Sharma u. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others. allowing the petition filed by the respondent.
(2.) The respondent filed the writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus, commanding the appellants to regularise his services on the post of Care-taker by providing him a regular pay scale, allowances, bonus, other benefits, and conditions of service as are available to Class IV employees of the Corporation, with effect from 5.1.1977.
(3.) The grounds alleged in the writ petition were that the petitioner respondent had been continuously in service in the guest house of the Corporation with effect from 5.1.1977, his services were found to be satisfactory, and, thus, he had acquired the status of a regular employee of the Corporation by virtue of his continuous service for more than 240 days. It was averred that petitioner-respondent was entitled for his appointment on the post of Caretaker because the vacancy itself was of permanent nature. The petitioner averred that he never worked on contract basis as there was no executed contract or agreement but the appellants were illegally and falsely trying to show that he was appointed on contract basis. He also averred that he was discharging his duties for more than ten hours a day whereas the regular employees of the Corporation were required to do only eight hours job. According to him in the beginning he was paid only a meager salary of Rs. 120 per month from 5.1.1977, and Rs. 150 with effect from 24.4.1979 till filing of the petition which was a glaring example of exploitative attitude of the opposite parties and an extreme case of unfair labour policy being adopted by opposite parties. It was further averred by him that he had been discharging similar duties as were being discharged by the other Caretakers of the Corporation but they were being paid even more than ten times salary and allowances etc., along with other benefits and conditions of service. He averred that he was entitled to get the same salary, allowances and other benefits on the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the alternative, it was averred by the petitioner that even if he was appointed on contract basis, then also it was unconscionable and against public policy and was hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Petitioner averred that on 1.6.1988, the Regional Manager had informed him that according to the Contract he was to be paid Rs. 150 per month, and later on Rs. 390 per month provided he signed another contract on judicial stamp, and he was required to work for eight hours per day. According to the petitioner his services were never on contract basis, as he was appointed temporarily, and wages were increased from time to time. Therefore, he requested for giving adequate wages which were being paid to other employees. He also sent letters to the Life Insurance Corporation and Employees Federation and requested the authorities concerned to regularise his services with effect from 5.1.1977. On the basis of the above averments the petitioner-respondent prayed for the relief's mentioned above.;