Anjali Chandrashekhar Patil and Others vs The Labour Officer and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 02/01/2008 passed by the first respondent impugned at Annexure "F" to the petition. By the order impugned, the first respondent has held, respondents 3 and 4 to be a full time employees of the petitioners and has in that view directed the petitioners to pay the difference of the salary.

Brief facts are that the respondents 3 and 4 and one other person Sri. Malleshi were employed as sweepers by the petitioners in Shringar Cinema. The issue for consideration before the first respondent was as to whether such employment of respondents 3, 4 and also the said Sri. Malleshi was as full time employees for 8 hours as claimed by respondents 2 to 4 or as to whether respondents 3, 4 and Sri. Malleshi were working on part time basis for 4 hours in the said Shringar cinema under the petitioners. The basis for initiating such action is the representation made by the 4th respondent herein to the second respondent, the copies of which were marked to the various authorities for implementation of the labour laws. In that view, an inspection was held and the second respondent has submitted a report indicating that respondents 3 and 4 were working for 8 hours in Shringar cinema. The first respondent in the course of the proceedings, has accepted the said report submitted by the second respondent and has arrived at the conclusion that respondents 3 and 4 are full time employees and they should be paid the balance of the wages.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that from the document at Annexure "B" namely the inspection report submitted by the second respondent, it is seen that he has altered the earlier entries relating to the hours of work, which has lead to a wrong conclusion, I have secured the records relating to the proceedings from the learned Government Pleader and perused the same. Hence, the consideration of the matter requires to be made keeping in view the documents that had been produced before the authority. In addition to the evidence that had been tendered by the petitioners, one of the employees Sri. Malleshi was also examined. Both, in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and in the cross-examination, he has maintained that he was working for 4 hours under the petitioners. In that light, the consideration is with regard to the report submitted by the second respondent which was marked in the proceedings as Ex. 6-1. A perusal of the same would indicate that though it was shown as 4 hours, the same has been struck off and therefore indicated as 8 hours. It is interesting to note such alternation has been made only against the respondents 3 and 4 herein as also against the name of Sri Malleshi. It is the case of the petitioners that whose names are indicated in the muster roll are employed for 8 hours while the name of respondents 3, 4 and the said Mallesh, is separately shown as part time sweepers cum scavengers and they have employed them for 4 hours and they are required only for the purpose of cleaning after the show time.

If these aspects of the matter is kept in view and the documents produced at Exs. P-1 to P-4 are perused, the same being register of employment which has been maintained by the petitioners would disclose the name of the regular employees at Sl. No. 1 to 7 and the name of respondents 3, 4 and the said Sri Malleshi separately as part time sweepers. Against their names their working hours on rotation basis has also been indicated. The commencing period of their work and the period at which it ceases is mentioned therein and the same would disclose that their employment is for 4 hours. In the document at Ex. P(4) where a similar indication has been made against the said 3 names as sweepers, all the 3 persons have signed against their names. It cannot be a circumstance that the said document has been fabricated subsequently since respondents 3 and 4 who have supported the case of the authorities have also signed the said documents.

In such circumstance, when the relevant documents indicate that respondents 3 and 4 were working as part time sweepers for 4 hours per day on rotation basis, the conclusion reached by the first respondent that they are regular employees would not be sustainable. I am of the said opinion for one more reason being that the entire issue leading to the impugned order was passed on the representation made by the 4th respondent herein to the second respondent as at Annexure "A" to the petition. A detail perusal of the representation would indicate that the 4th respondent himself has indicated that he has been working as a temporary sweeper and as such has sought for regularization of his services. The first respondent as also the other labour law enforcing authorities to whom the said representation was made instead of taking up the issue with regard to the regularization of the services of the 4th respondent by issuing notice for conciliation and thereafter proceeding in accordance with law, has wrongly construed the same for the purpose of considering the case for payment of minimum wages. When it is admitted that they were working as sweepers and their services had not been on regular basis, the documents produced namely the extract of the employment register cannot be disputed wherein the hours of work has been indicated. If that be the position, the first respondent ought not to have accepted the contention put forth that the wages for the remaining 4 hours is also required to be computed when in fact they have not discharged such employment as regular employees for 8 hours as was being done by other employees.

Hence, the order dated 02/01/2008 impugned herein cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly quashed. Needless to mention that if respondents 3 and 4 have any grievance with regard to the non-regularization of their employment, certainly, they would be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of.