Meghalaya Civil Task Force vs State of Meghalaya and Others

D.N. Chowdhury, J.—The Petitioner Association is espousing the cause of the members of the Civil Task Force, namely who are holding the post of Subordinate Officers, under Officers as well as Pioneers. The basic grievance of the Petitioners are that they are being paid abnormlly minimum scale which virtually amounted to forced labour. According to the Petitioners the scale so far given to these members are even below the wages fixed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It has been ascertained that though in the State there are revision of pay scale of other Government employees, the members of the Association is stagnating at a fixed scale since 1984. The Respondent/State Government entered appearance and stated that the pay structure of these members of the Association are regulated by the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Act, 1974 (Act I of 1974) as well as the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Rules, 1980 prescribing the pay and allowances of the members of the Force in Schedule "A" appended to the Rules. It has been further asserted that since 1987 no work has been performed by this Task Force and the Act by which the wages are based was created before publishing the notification fixing the minimum wages in 1987 and 1990. It has been specifically stated that in view of the fact that no work has been performed by the Task Force, the Government did not deem it appropriate to extend the Minimum Wages to these employees. It was also asserted in the affidavit that the Government is contemplatihg about the winding up of the Meghalaya Civil Task Force and that the expenditure incurred by the Government in maintaining the task force is far outweighing the utility of the task force and in view of the fact that the development department have stopped allotting works to the task force. The State legislature enacted the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Act, 1974 to provide for a constitution of a force to be called the Meghalaya Civil Task Force. In pursuance to the said Act the State Government raised Task Force and is maintaining the same consisted of number of members as directed by the State Govt. from time to time. u/s 4 any adult person may offer himself for enrolment of the member of the Force if he satisfies the prescribed conditions be enrolled in the prescribed manner by the prescribed authority for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Section 6 of the Act prescribed the duties and functions of the Force, provisions of which are cited below:

The following shall be the duties and functions of the Force, namely:

(a) to do any work, manual or otherwise connected with construction maintenance and protection of road, bridge, building, canal, embankment, land reclamation or any other developmental work;

(b) to do other social work as may be entrusted by the proscribed authority.

(c) to perform such other works and duties and discharge such obligations as the State Government may, from tune to time, by general or special order direct in this behalf.

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act the State Government made rules known as the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Rules, 1980. Rule 2(h) defined the "Other member", means a member of the Force other than a Superior Officer, Subordinate Officer and Under Officer and includes a pioneer and such of the medical and clerical staff as the State Government may decide. Subordinate Officer, Superior Officer and Under Officer are similarly defined in Rule 2(m), (n) and (o). As per the definition clause a Subordinate Officer means a member of the rank of Subedar Major, Subedar and Jamadar; and Superior Officer means a member of the rank of Commandant, Deputy Commandant, Assistant Commandant and the Medical Officer, and the Under Officer means a member of the rank of Havildar Major, Havildar and Naik. Rule 15 proscribed the Service Conditions of the members of the Force, and prescribed that the service conditions of the members of the Force including matters relating to recruitment, probation, promotion, seniority, pay, allowance, leave, benefits, duties, responsibilities, disciplinary actions, etc. shall be as proscribed in the regulations framed for this purpose by the State Govt. from time to time.

The Meghalaya Civil Task Force Rules, 1980 is made u/s 12 of 1974 Act. Rule 11 as well as Schedule "A", which are relevant for the purpose of the decision are clodded down below:

�

PAY, SPECIAL PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Pay : (1) The pay and allowances of any member of the Force shall be as indicated in the Schedule "A" appended to these Rules.

(2) The members of the Force other than Superior Officers shall be the terms and conditions of the contract, if he has been appointed on contract basis and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deputation, if he has been appointed on deputation basis.

(2) The members of the Force other than Superior Officers shall be entitled to 15 days casual leave in a year and in addition shall be entitled to paid Sundays and shall also be entitled to 25th December, the Republic Day and the Independence day as paid holidays�.

�

SCHEDULE "A" Rule 11(1) of the M.C.T.F. Rules, 1980

Name of post Fixed pay Ration allowance Special pay admissible

Rs. Rs. Rs.

Superior Officers

Commandant 1,500 Nil �

Deputy Commandant 1,000 Nil �

Asstt.Commandant 600 Nil �

Medical Officer (Asstt. Surgeon-I) According to scale of pay prescribed by Government

Subordinate officers :

Subedar 300 80 �

Jamadar 250 80 Jamadar Qm Rs. 30 p.m.

Under Officers :

Havildar Majors 175 80 Force Havildar Major Rs.20 p.m.

Havildars 160 80 Qm.Havildar Rs. 25 pm Wksp and Tpt Pl. Rs. 30 pm.

Naiks 140 80 Nk.i/cMt. Rs.20 pm.

Other members :

Pioneers 120 80 Pioneer Trades Man Rs. 20 pm

Overseer According to the scale of pay prescribed for Overseer Grade II of the Public Works Department.

�.

Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that presently there are 3 platoons who are engaged in construction and maintenance of the bridges particularly in West Khasi Hills and Garo Hills. According to him, the Superior Officers namely Commandant, Deputy Commandant and Assistant Commandant in the Force are drawing the Government scale, and the ministerial staff, including the Grade IV staff, are also similarly drawing the Govt. scale given to the State Govt. employees. Therefore, the scale of pay given in Schedule "A" in respect of those class of officers are not being followed. According to Mr. Upadhyaya the members of the Association are virtually thrown to give forced labour though prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Upadhyaya particularly has drawn my attention to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the two Notifications whereby in the same state the State Government has revised the minimum wages u/s 5(2) of the Act. He brought my attention to the wage revision dated 1.7.87 which fixed the minimum wages of skilled labour at Rs. 18/- per day and unskilled labour at Rs. 15/- per day. By a notification dated 22.5.90 the minimum rate of wages in respect of employees employeed in employment of agriculture, construction of roads and biding operations, stone crushing and stone breaking operations, sericulture and weaving, fruit preservation, soil conservation etc. was further revised whereby the skilled labours were given Rs. 30/- per diem and Rs. 25/- per diem for unskilled labours w.e.f. 1.6.1990. The provisions of the Minimum Wages Act is meant for providing social justice to the workmen employed in the scheduled employment by prescribing minimum rate of wages. The legislative policy is to fix the minimum wages with a view to obviate chance of exploitation of labour and accordingly the Indian Parliament intended to apply the Act to those industries where due to unorganised labour and other causes the wages of the labourers are very low.

What the Act seeks to achieve is to prevent exploitation of labour and for that matter it authorised the appropriate Government to take steps to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the scheduled industries. What is the minimum rates of wages wich in a welfare state is stated to be assumed the remuneration offered by the employer to pay before he employs a labourer. It is also perceived that in cotain matters though it has, as a result, made an inread on the constitutional right guaranty under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia despite the protestation of the industrialists, the Supreme Court of lndia upheld the provisions of Act in the interest of general public and held that the provisions are protected by Clause 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution. (Reference Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. The State of Ajmer, While dealing with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act the Courts in India particularly the Supreme Court of lndia have also observed that the minimum wages are to be paid irrespective of the expenditure, profit as well as the financial capacity. The capacity to pay and to carry on the business is held to be of no consequences. On the contrary it has been held that no industry has right to exist unless it is able to pay to the workmen atleast the minimum wages. Apart from the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the Directive Principles as contained in Part IV of the Constitution has also obligated on the State to secure a social order for promotion of the welfare of the people. Article 38 which echoes the preamble of the Constituticm of India has charged the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Clause (2) of Article 38 enjoing the State to strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate errequalities in status, facilities and not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people reading in different areas or engaged in different vocations. The provisions contained in Article 39, 41, 42 and 43 aim at the establishment of Socially democratic republic as envisaged by the preamble to endeavour a decent standard of life and economic security of the working force. According to the learned Counsel, as on today, the Subedar and Jamadar, who are known as Subordinate Officers, are getting pay packet of Rs. 412/- p.m. Havildar Majors, Hvildars and Naiks who are known as Under Officers are drawing a pay packet of Rs. 300/- p.m. and the Pioneers are receiving a pay of 250/- p.m. which admittedly, is much below, the minimum rate of wages. Incidentally it is the state, which is cl(sic)tbed with the duty to enforce the Minimum Wages Act and accordingly, from time to time, the state is revising the minimum wages for the persons working in the scheduled industries, including the persons who are working under the local authorities through out the State, and violation of the provisions of the Act including non-payment of the wages that is prescribed u/s 5(2) of the Act entails penal consequences. Therefore, the State with a view to cany the moral authority in enforcing the Minimum Wages Act in respect the Scheduled industries that they are required to set its own houses in order. As enumerated earlier the State charged with the responsibility, by the Indian Constitution and cannot thus put off their obligation on the ground as enumerated in the affidavit, so much so, the State owes the obligation to the Constitution.

Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Counsel for the State Govt. brought my attention to Section 20 of the Act which empower the State to appoint any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than minimum rates of wages or in respect of remuneration, etc. According to Mr. Kynjing the Petitioner upon not being paid, as per provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, ought to have approached the State Government u/s 20 of the Act. The Petitioner has not in fact rested its claim on the Minimum Wages Act but they have only brought the attention of the Court that even the scale fixed by the State Govt. in other industries under the Minimum Wages Act are higher than the scale given to them by the Govt. Even otherwise the responsibility is that of the State Govt. to decide any claim made under the Minimum Wages Act The Petitioner is a crying hoarse for giving a higher pay scale and accordingly from time to time moved the authorities for giving the higher scale. As narated earlier, it is not the question, as to whether they moved the Government authority or not formally u/s 20 of the Act for giving a higher scale, the question here is the responsibility of the State in discharging its obligation that the working force, who are employed by them, is paid atleast a scale to meet their legitimate need.

Similar contention of the Respondent is that in the absence of challenging the validity of the Act I of 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Petitioner cannot claim the higher rates beyond the provisions as contained in the Rules. The Court is concerned as to whether the constitutional right of Petitioner under Article 14 is transgressed or not. Transgression or infringement can be looked into even without holding the Act and Rules as ultra vires.

I am also not impressed with the plea of the authority as raised in its affidavit-in- opposition in refusing to pay the reasonable salary to meet both the ends, because of the alleged want of work in the department. Lastly the learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled for any higher rates of wages since with open eyes these persons joined in the services and cannot now come around and demand for a higher salary. The acceptance of a job under Government cannot estop its employees from demanding higher scales.

On the consideration of the facts situations, I am of the view that it is a case where the State Govt. is required to examine the matter for revision of the pay scale of the members of the Association, as apparently, the pay which the members are being given are much below the accepted norms. In this view of the matter, the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Labour Department is directed to examine the cases of the classes of employees represented by the Petitioners for enhancement of their scale in conformity with the scales given by the Government to similarly situated persons within 3(three) months from today. The Petitioners Association may also submit proper representation or represratations before the said authority placing their claim within a month and after considering their claim and after taking all aspects of the matter, the Authority, in the light of this Court''s observations, shall pass appropriate order within the period specified above.

The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.