Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 2: High Court today directed the government to consider the claim of casual labourers for minimum wages as they have rendered their services for a pretty long time and cannot be denied the minimum wages to them.
The petitioners who are unskilled and skilled casual labourers have challenged the order of April 2022 whereby they are denied the minimum wages as per the existing rates @ Rs. 300 per day.
Justice M Akram Chowdhary quashed the order under challenge and directed the authorities that these casual labourers are entitled for minimum wages under and in-terms of SRO 460 of 2017 as such the impugned order as a result is quashed with the direction to the authorities to pass fresh order granting wages to these labourers with effect from the date the impugned order was passed
Justice Chowdhary said the petitioners after rendering their services for a pretty long time, cannot be denied at least the minimum wages payable and permissible, otherwise it shall be travesty of justice and complete denial of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to ask the petitioners to continue to render their services on a meagre amount.
“The case of the petitioners may be considered to be paid at the rate of Minimum Wages Act as applicable in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, which shall, however, be subject to the condition that the engagement is full-time and not part-time. The petitioners, as per the record of the respondents, as discussed, have been working as Casual Labourers and not part time”, Court concluded.
Court raised an important question on the issue and said as to whether the aggrieved petitioners after having rendered services in the capacity of Sweepers and Chowkidars for the last more than 24 years can continue to be paid a minimum amount of Rs.300 per month.
Court said that it shall be mockery of fairness and complete repudiation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to ask the aggrieved employees to continue to render their services on a meagre amount of Rs 300 per month.
Court while referring to the treatment given to the similar employees, said the aggrieved employees should have been dealt with in the same manner. “Article 14 of the Constitution provides for right to equality, however, the respondents, who have taken different decisions in the cases of similarly placed persons, cannot take different decisions in similarly circumstanced cases offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Both the cases should have been given the same treatment and rightly so as in other persons”, reads the judgment.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel