450/- per month as wages is other form of ‘forced labour’, violative of Article 23: Allahabad HC directs UP Govt to pay minimum wages to IV Class daily wage worker

Hearing a plea filed by a Class-IV employee working of ‘daily wages’ alleging other form of forced labor prohibited under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution being taken from him, the Allahabad High Court last week pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Government for paying Rs. 450/- per month as wages to him since his initial engagement in 2001.

The Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, “This Court is unable to fathom as to how State can continue the exploitation of Class-IV post employees for about 20 years on the strength of Government Order.”

The writ petition was filed by one Tufail Ahmad Ansari stating that he was an employee with the MD Eye Hospital, Prayagraj, since June 2001 on a Class-IV post and he was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month since his initial engagement, which was less than the minimum wages prescribed and is nothing but other forms of forced labour and strictly prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

However, against this backdrop, the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State, produced one Government order of January, 1986 according to which minimum wages were fixed at Rs. 350/- per month and were subsequently raised in 1992 from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month. He contended that the same was being paid to the petitioner.

In this regard, referring to Top court’s ruling in People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others (1982), the Court held,

“The prescription of Rs. 450/- per month as wages vide Government Order dated 01.07.1992 is clearly a “other form of forced labour” and is in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.”

Court said that if the stand of the Standing Counsel is accepted, this Court would also be guilty of ignoring the plight of Class-IV persons who are being exploited by the State for so long.

The petitioner had also averred that despite him being entitled for being considered for regularization in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules, 2016, the case of the petitioner was not being considered as well.

Upon this issue, referring to The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Posts (outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules, 2016 rules that were framed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006, court observed,

“All the persons employed prior to 31.12.2001 are entitled to be considered for regularisation and as the petitioner is working on ‘daily wages’ as defined under the Rules of 2016, the petitioner is clearly entitled to regularization in terms of the said rules.”

Therefore, addressing both the pleas urged by the petitioner, court directed that with regard to first prayer of raise in current daily wage, he will be paid the minimum wages as prescribed in the State of Uttar Pradesh from the date of his initial appointment after deduction of already paid amount and with regard to the relief of regularisation, authorities will pass an order in respect of regularization of the petitioner as claimed by him.

Court also directed that both the actions will be taken within four months from the date of filing of copy of this order before the concerned authorities.

Case title - Tufail Ahmad Ansari v. State Of U P And 2 Others