- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. All these spe cial appeals being similar in nature involv ing similar facts and points of law, were heard together with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties They are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE controversy raised in these cases relates to the date from which the appellants will be given the benefit of parity of pay with regular tube-well operators. Since we are not concerned very much with the merit of the claim of the appellants in the writ petition, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts of the case. For the purpose of appreciation of the controversy, it would be sufficient to state the following facts: The appellants in all the cases were part-time tube-well operators of the State Government in the Irrigation Depart ment. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 20-2-1992 by which their nomencla ture was changed from part-time tube-well operators to tube-well assistants and honoraria of Rs. 550 per month was fixed in lieu of pay, they filed the writ petitions seeking quashing of the said notification and for a direction to the opposite-parties to pay them salary in scale of pay which is admissible and is being paid to regularly appointed full-time lube-well operators. A large number of writ petitions involving similar facts and seeking similar relief were filed in this Court. The first batch of writ petition No. 3558 of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. v. State of U. P. , & Ors. and 49 other cases were disposed of by Brijesh Kumar, J. by the judgment-rendered on 18-5-1994. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "in the result, I allow all the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992 and quash the Notification dated 20-2-1992 (as con tained in Annexure-1 to Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992) by which nomenclature of the petitioners has been changed to that of tube-well assistants and honoraria of Rs. 550 per month has been fixed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i. e. in the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed tube-well operators are being paid. Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992 filed by the State, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. & Ors. v. Makrand Singh & Ors. , is dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. " It is relevant to note here that in the judgment the learned Judge held inter alia (a) that the alleged freedom of taking up any job or profession is a mere farce and a device adopted to deprive the petitioners of their lawful emoluments, by calling them as part-time tube-well operators and now as tube-well assistants, (b) that the circumstances stated in the judgment cer tainly cast a shadow of doubt on the bona fides in issuing the Notification dated February 20, 1992; (c) that there seems to be substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the inten tion for changing the nomenclature of part-time tube-well operators to that of tube-well assistants is only with a view to put them in the category of unskilled labour so that they may not claim mini mum wages of skilled labour in which category tube-well operators fall; (d) that the tube-well operators and erstwhile part-time tube- well operators, now called as tube-well assistants, perform same na ture of duties; though it is provided that duty hours of the tube-well assistants are from 9. 30 a. m. to 12 noon, but it is only on paper; in fact they have to work whenever electricity is available during any time of the day and it has also been found that they work much more than two and a half hours, the petitioners have placed sup porting materials to indicate that they work for more than two and a half hours; (e) that the plea that it is uneconomical to pay them full wages is not a valid ground and in favour of some of the petitioners, orders passed for payment of wages to them under the Minimum Wages Act have been upheld by the High Court; and (f) that it is highly improper to change the nomenclature of the part-time tube-well operators to that of tube-well assistants without there being any one to whom they could render the assistance and there being no change in the nature of their work, it was not done with bona fide inten tion.
(3.) IT is also relevant to state here that before the aforementioned judgment was rendered, the Labour Court, on reference of the dispute raised at the instance of some-part-time tube-well operators, had passed an award that they were entitled to the same pay/wages as the tube-well operators. The State challenged the aforementioned judgment by filing special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 27-3-1995. Yet, another attempt by the opposite-parties for review of the order was rejected by the Supreme Court on 18-10-1995.;