http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4454-4466 of 2000

PETITIONER: Marathwada Agricultural University & Ors

RESPONDENT: Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith,M.S.K.S. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/08/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4454-4466 OF 2000

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      The present appeals are directed against the judgment of  a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.  Several Writ  Petitions were disposed of by the High Court.  These writ  petitions were filed either by the Unions of the workers of the  Marathwada Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as  the ’University’) or by the employees of the University against  the State of Maharashtra and against the University.  The  primary grievance was that qualification, nature of work,  duties and responsibilities of the work of labourers who were  daily rated labourers are same as that of permanent labourers  employed by the University.  Even then the daily rated workers  were getting far less wages than the emoluments which were  being paid to permanent labourers.  It was also submitted that  the Maharashtra Mumbai Wages Commission constituted  under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had fixed the rate of  wages depending upon the zones in the Marathwada region.   But the University paid these daily rated workers far less.   2.      The High Court held that denial of the appropriate wages  to the daily-rated workers amounted to exploitation of labour.   The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant  position by forcing them to work as casual labourers on  starvation wages. Therefore, it was directed that the daily  rated workers were to be paid wages with effect from 1st May,  1988 at the rate of basic pay i.e. at the minimum of the pay  scale plus dearness allowance divided by 26.

3.      The directions in essence were as follows:

       "Therefore it is being directed that if the daily  rated workers are being given paid weekly off,  then they be paid the wages at the rate of basic  pay (at the minimum of the pay scale) plus  dearness allowance divided by 30; and if paid  weekly off is not being given to the daily rated  workers, then they be paid wages at the rate of  basic pay (at the minimum of the pay scale)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

plus dearness allowance divided by 26.  Such  payment should be on the basis of the  categories of the daily rated workers, such as,  skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, as the case  may be."

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  workers were seasonal workers and the question of  regularization does not arise in view of what has been stated  by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma  Devi and Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1).

5.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that there is no question of regularization but of  parity of pay.  A dispute has been raised by the appellant that  the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’ID Act’) was  not applicable because the University was not an industry.  It  was also submitted that the High Court’s direction is to work  out applicable norms.      

6.      Considering the peculiar nature of the controversy, we  feel that a committee should be constituted for the purpose of  rationalization of the wages to be paid to the concerned  workers. In Uma Devi’s case (supra) in paras 20 & 21 it was  noted as follows:

"The decision in Dharwad Distt. PWD  Literate Daily Wage Employees  Assn. v. State  of Karnataka (1990(2)SCC 396) dealt with a  scheme framed by the State of Karnataka,  though at the instance of the Court. The  scheme was essentially relating to the  application of the concept of equal pay for  equal work hut it also provided for making  permanent, or what it called regularization,  without keeping the distinction in mind, of  employees who had been appointed ad hoc,  casually, temporarily or on daily-wage basis.  In other words, employees who had been  appointed without following the procedure  established by law for such appointments.  This Court, at the threshold, stated that it  should individualise justice to suit a given  situation. With respect it is not possible to  accept the statement, unqualified as it  appears to be. This Court is not only the  constitutional court, it is also the highest  court in the country, the final court of appeal.  By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution,  what this Court lays down is the law of the  land. Its decisions are binding on all the  courts. Its main role is to interpret the  constitutional and other statutory provisions  bearing in mind the fundamental philosophy  of the Constitution. We have given unto  ourselves a system of governance by rule of  law. The role of the Supreme Court is to  render justice according to law. As one jurist  put it, the Supreme Court is expected to  decide questions of law for the country and  not to decide individual cases without  reference to such principles of law.  Consistency is a virtue. Passing orders not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

consistent with its own decisions on law, is  hound to send out confusing signals and  usher in judicial chaos. Its role, therefore, is  really to interpret the law and decide cases  coming before it, according to law. Orders  which are inconsistent with the legal  conclusions arrived at by the court in the  selfsame judgment not only create confusion  but also tend to usher in arbitrariness  highlighting the statement, that equity tends  to vary with the Chancellor’s foot.

In Dharwad case (supra) this Court was  actually dealing with the question of "equal  pay for equal work" and had directed the  State of Karnataka to frame a scheme in that  behalf. In para 17 of the judgment (in SCC),  this Court stated that the precedents obliged  the State of Karnataka to regularise the  services of the casual or daily/monthly-rated  employees and to make them the same  payment as regular employees were getting.  Actually, this Court took note of the argument  of counsel for the State that in reality and as  a matter of statecraft, implementation of such  a direction was an economic impossibility and  at best only a scheme could be framed. Thus  a scheme for absorption of casual/daily-rated  employees appointed on or before 1-7-1984  was framed and accepted. The economic  consequences of its direction were taken note  of by this Court in the following words: (SCC  pp. 408-09, para 24)

"24. We are alive to the position that  the scheme which we have finalised is  not the ideal one but as we have  already stated, it is the obligation of  the court to individualise justice to  suit a given situation in a set of facts  that are placed before it. Under the  scheme of the Constitution the purse  remains in the hands of the  executive. The legislature of the State  controls the Consolidated Fund out of  which the expenditure to be incurred,  in giving effect to the scheme, will  have to be met. The flow into the  Consolidated Fund depends upon the  policy of taxation depending perhaps  on the capacity of the payer.  Therefore, unduly burdening the  State for implementing the  constitutional obligation forthwith  would create problems which the  State may not be able to stand. We  have, therefore, made our directions  with judicious restraint with the hope  and trust that both parties would  appreciate and understand the  situation. The instrumentality of the  State must realize that it is charged  with a big trust. The money that flows  into the Consolidated Fund and  constitutes the resources of the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

comes from the people and the  welfare expenditure that is meted out  goes from the same Fund back to the  people. May be that in every situation  the same taxpayer is not the  beneficiary. That is an incident of  taxation and a necessary concomitant  of living within a welfare society."

7.      But the question really is not of regularization.  The more  important factor is that the committee should hear the view of  the parties and formulate a scheme relating to the amount to  be paid to the workman without them being regularized.  It  shall also examine whether there is any necessity for parity of  the wages, taking into account the norms relating to the  method of requirement, the seasonal nature of the  employment, if any.   

8.      The committee shall consist of Smt. M.H. Pandit, Joint  Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as a  representative for the State Government and Shri Udhav,  Joint Secretary of the Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Karamchari  Union and the University shall nominate two persons who  have expertise in financial matters.  The committee in essence  would be an equivalance committee.  The report shall be given  to the State Government within a period of four months from  date of constitution of the committee.

9.      The State Government then shall take necessary action  on the basis of the recommendation, after obtaining the view  of the University and after giving all concerned parties an  opportunity of stating their views. The order of the High Court  shall not be given effect to in view of the directions as  contained above.

10.     The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as  to costs.