Tarushi Tewari
Introduction
In the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Bal Kishan, the Division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh in Delhi High Court dealt with a matter regarding full payment of wages to a workers even when proceedings against them are going on.
Background
The concerned workman made a claim of unjustified termination against NDMC. He had been dismissed in 2000. The Labour Court dismissed his claim.
A Single Judge bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the decision of the Labour Court and granted regularization to the workman with 30% back wages and continuity of his services for all purposes.
Instead of complying with the said decision, NDMC moved the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court against the decision under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The case involved section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read along with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Court.
It also involves Section 4, Minimum Wages Act .
The Proceedings
NDMC ( North Delhi Municipal Corporation) :
The Corporation said that the worker left the services of NDMC in the year 2000 and was aged 27 at that time and it is difficult to believe that an able bodied person of that age was not able to work and feed his family.
The Corporation expressed its difficulty in finding out the employment details of the concerned Workman –Applicant-Respondent 1.
It also stated that if an order is passed against the said act, then the public exchequer will be burdened as the Corporation was facing financial hardships.
It also said that as the decision of the Single bench was not in favour of the workman he cannot move an application under Section 17B of the Act
Workman
The workman moved his application against the said act regarding payment of full back wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher and payment of any maintenance charges if involved.
He also stated that he was not gainfully employed during the pendency of the case.
The Bench
The Argument involving the public exchequer and the financial crunch was, in the bench’s opinion, shaky.
It said that the writ petition was only a continuation of the claim which the worker had filed before the Labour Court. Impliedly the Decision of the Single Judge bench to grant 30% back wages and to consider regularization in this case was a decision made in favour of the workman.
In the opinion of the Division Bench the challenging of the Decision of the Single Bench by the Corporation gave jurisdiction to this court to grant relief to the Applicant-Respondent 1.
Under Article 226 and Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, if the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ,no order which denies him the benefits under its provisions can be passed.
NrDMC also could not Disprove the claim by the worker that he was not gainfully employed during the period of the proceedings.
According to the Court, the workman and his family should not starve during the period of pendency, considering the amount of time it would take.
Judgement
The Court ruled that the workman was entitled to the full wages. Since he had been granted regularisation the corporation had to pay him either back wages or the minimum wage whichever is higher from 18/12/20 and the payment should be incessant during the period of pendency.
Conclusion
The labourers and the workmen form the backbone of the economy and their Rights are inviolable and along with the judiciary, the society should also preserve them.
In my opinion, denying of wages to the workman during the pendency period would have been a violation of his Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as this money was required by him to feed himself and his family and ‘Right to Food ‘ was covered under this Right in Kishen Pathhnayak and others v. State of Orissa.Fundamental Rights are paramount to the maintenance and preservation of justice and democracy in India and should be preserved.
Leave a Reply