Prafulla Kumar Ghosh and Others vs The Farm Manager, Sisal Plantation Farm, and Others

Mahitosh Majumdar, J.—This case merits a prologue

"I''m the parliamentary draftsman I compose the country''s laws; And of half the litigation I''m undoubtedly the cause."

There is widespread complaint that the judicial system is loaded beyond its capacity and is cracking and breaking down under its docket, weight, complicated procedures and midget disposals.

Lord Denning said that "law does not stand still. It moves continually. One this is recognised, then the task of the judge is put or a higher plane. He must consciously seek to mould the law so as to serve the needs of the time. He must not be a mere mechanic, a mere working mason, laying brick on brick, without thought to the overall design.. He must be an architect - thinking of the structure as a whole - building for society a system of law which is strong, durable and just. It is on his work that civilised society itself depends".

In the instant case, the petitioners had to knock their heads at the alter of the temple of justice for redressal of their grievances. The petitioners asked for a direction upon the respondents for the absorption in the regular establishment and for further direction upon the respondents to forebear themselves from giving any effect to the directions contained in Memoramdum No. 428 dated 31st March, 1983 by the Director of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal for the engagement of the petitioners at Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum in rotational system and/or basis. Some of the petitioners were first appointed in the year, 1956, their particulars are given below : -

Sl. No. Name of the Year of appointment

petitioner/worker with designation

Adhar Chandra Mondal 1956 as Agricultural worker.

Lal Mardy 1956 as Rope Man.

Lakshmiram Murmu Churku 1956 as Combing Man.

Kisku 1956 as Agricultural Worker.

Jalim Murmu 1956 as Agricultural Worker.

Ganashyam Mondal 1956 as Combing Man.

Debu Saw 1956 as Rope Maker.

Nirod Baran Saha 1956 as Hollerman.

Binoy Chandra Roy - do -

Smt. Sukhadi Baski 1956 as Agricultural Worker.

Smt. Sanodi Hemram - do -

Smt. Laskshmi Murmu - do-

Smt. Fulmoni Murmu - do-

Smt. Rashmoni Soren - do-

Smt. Domchi Heram - do-

Smt. Lakshmi Hemram - do -

Smt. Sonamani Soren - do -

Relevant portion of particulars of some of the petitioners who joined in between the years, 1957 and 1965 is quoted below : -

Sl. No. Name of the year of appointment

petitioner/worker with designation.

Ashim Kr, Adhikari 1956 as Agricultural worker

Biswanath Saha 1964 as Agricultural worker.

Nagen Mardy 1963 as Rain Man.

Nibaran Das 1864 as Rain Man

Budhan Ch. Mondal 1963 as Rope Line worker

Dhananjoy Tudu 1963 as Agricultural worker

Bijoy Mondal 1962 as Rain Man.

Anukul Mondal 1965 as Combing Man

Bhaktipada Ghosh 1965 as Night Guard

Lakshan Ch. Kora i965 as Agricultural worker

Gunadhar Mal 1965 as Agricultural worker

Tarapada Mondal 1965 as Rain Man

Motilal Hasda 1963 as Agricultural worker

Haradhan Ghosh 1958 as Rain Man

Sanaton Powria 1964 as Agricultural worker

Mano Heram 1964 as Combing Man

Naren Mardy 1963 as Rain Man

Lakshmiram Mardy 1965 as Agricultural worker

Matru Soren 1959 as Rain Man

Bijoy Mal 1963 as Combing Man

Garib Sk. 1959 as Agricultural worker

Patu Mal 1964 as Combing Man

Radhyashyam Mondal 1961 as Yearn Man

Sufal Mondal 1957 as Ropeline Man

Badudhan Mardy 1965 as Combing Man.

Kanti Mondal 1965 as Yearman

Rupal Murmu 1962 as Agricultural worker

Netai Hemram 1957 as Year Man

Tarani Mondal 1965 do-

Nanda Soren 1961 as Night Guard

Dhiren Saha 1965 as Agricultural worker

Dhaku Sarma 1962 Carpenter

Kalipada Sarma - do -

Sundar Bhandari 1965 as Holderman

Sakti Ghorai 1965 as Holderman

Paresh Pather 1963 as Hollerman

Lakshman Ch. Manna 1964 as Hollerman

Nanda Ghosh 1961 as Hollerman

Madan Manna 1963 as Hollerman

Kalicharan Saha 1961 as Hollerman

Smt. Rupin Murmu 1964 as Agricultural worker

Smt. Sabari Murmu 1963 - do -

Smt. Rashmani Murmu (Dacca) 1964 - do -

Smt. Paku Hemram 1961 - do -

Smt. Sakrow Murmu 1965 - do -

" Sanodi Powria 1965 - do -

" Rashmoni Josku 1964 - do -

" Lakshmi Murmu 1965 - do -

" Sumi Baski 1963 - do -

" Pata Judu 1959 - do -

" Kalindi Baski 1959 - do -

" Khandi Baski 1959 - do -

" Fulmoni Kisku 1964 - do -

" Debini Baski .1959 - do -

" Mino Hemram 1962 - do -

Rupni Murmu 1961 - do -

Mukhi Mardy 1963 - do -

Smt. Kalodi Soren 1964 as Agricultural worker

Smt. Bale Hemram 1959 - do -

" Rajani Soren 1960 - do -

" Sukumoni Murmu 1957 - do -

" Rashmoni Mardy 1957 - do -

" Sundari Mardy 1963 - do -

" Surajmani Murmu 1963 - do -

" Kalodi Hasda 1963 - do -

" Niyoti Mardy 1964 - do -

" Gungi Soren 1962 - do -

" Rasamoni Baski 1959 - do -

" Sykurmoni Tudu 1959 - do -

Other petitioners were appointed between 1966 and 1970 and their instances are given below : -

Sl. Name of the petitioner/worker Year of appointment with designation

Rabi Nandi 1970 for Official work

Mrinmoy Chakraborty 1968 for Supervision work

Bipad Taran Sadhu 1969 for Agricultural work

Jiten Rehani 1968 as Agricultural worker

Ratikanta Mondal 1970 as Rope Line worker

Shibapada Mondal 1968 as Combing man

Kalipada Mondal 1968 as Rain Man

Ashu Mondal 1970 as Carpenter

Atul Ch. Paul 1969 as Ropeline Man

Sakha Krishna Paul - do -

Fatik Maji 1970 as Rope Line Man

Tarapada Adhikari 1966 as Rope Line Man

Sanat Kr. Mondal 1970 as Agricultural worker

Raben Baski 969 as Combing Man

Dhena Tudu 969 as Agricultural worker

Mahadev Mal 1970 as Night Guard

Satin Tudu 1969 as Rain Man

Sidheswar Mondal 1968 as Combing Man

Mahadeb Mardy 1970 as Yarnman

Sukumar Mitra 1969 as Night Guard

Nepal Kora 1967 as Agricultural worker

Bablu Hasda 1970 as Night Guard

Mongal Hemram 1969 as Yarnman

Jitendra Nath Banerjee 1968 as Agricultural worker

Biswanath Roy 1970 as Agricultural worker

Dhena Mardy 1967 - do -

Sukul Murmu 1968 - do -

Shibdhan Hasda 1969 as Yarnman

Muchiram Murmu 1969 as Agricultural worker

Kunu Kisku - do -

Bhutnath Kisku 1969 - do -

32 Subodh Mondal 1968 as Yearn Man

Naresh Mondal 1968 - do -

Kalicharan Hasda 1966 as Agricultural worker

Kalu Soren - do -

Makar Biswal 1968 as Rope Maker

Nathu Saw 1966 - do -

Pareshnath Ghosh 1966 as Holderman

Dibakar Das 1969 as Holderman

Babusingh Siren 1970 as mechanic Helper

Nemai Chandra Karmakar 1970 as Hollerman

Nabanidhar Saha 1966 as Holderman

Kansari Roy 1968 - do -

Ajit Ghosh 1965 - do -

Rampada Das 1968 - do -

Jamini Ghosh 1968 - do -

Santosh Ghorai 1966 - do -

Sarat Kr. Rehani 1966 - do -

Smt. Sonamoni Powria 1966 as Agricultural worker

" Lochan Murmu - do -

" Rashmoni Murku (Hirapur) 1967 - do -

" Jasadi Baski 1970 - do -

" Hiramono Baski - do -.

" Bali Hasda 1970 - do -

" Somamoni Hemrarn 1967 as Agricultural worker

" Gungi Hasda 1968 as Agricultural worker

" Rani Murmu 1966 - do -

" Maino Murmu - do-

" Nani Murmu 1967 - do -

" Mani Tudu 1969 -do-

" Tulsi Hasda 1969 as Agricultural worker

" Sumi Mardy 1967 - do -

" Manodi Murmu 1967 - do -

" Sukirmoni Murmu 1969 - do -

" Mani Baski 1968 -do-

" Mukhodi Tudu 1969 - do -

" Sakti Ghosh 1967 - do -

" Chandra Soren 1969 - do -

Similarly, a group of petitioners entered their services as dailyrated worker between the period 1971 and 1979; their particulars are quoted below : -

Sl. No. Name of the petitioner/worker Year of appointment with designation

Prafulla Kumar Ghosh 1978 for official work

Nanda Sengupta -do -

Aparup Acharyya 1979 for official work

Sankar Ch. Mondal 1978 -do-

Sahadeb Mondal 1978 as Agricultural Worker

Sukumar Adhikari 1979 - do -

Ganesh Ch. Pan 1978 - do -

Arun Hemrarn 1978 - do -

Dhiren Ch. Mondal 1978 - do -

Arjun Bhandari 1979 - do -

Alkash Hossain 1973 - do -

Subodh Kr. Roy 1978 - do -

Fatil Ch. Karmakar 1979 as Agricultural worker

Rup Kr. Roy 1979 - do -

Badal Ch. Dutta 1978 - do -

Biswanath Chowdhury 1978 as Combing Man

Haritaran Mondal 1978 as Agricultural worker

Bhairah Sutradhar ,1979 as Carpenter

Gurupada Saha 1979 as Rope Line Man

Dulal Khan 1979 as Agricultural worker*

Sontosh Kr. Roy 1971 - do -

Dayal Mondal 1973 as Rain Man

Sudhir Kr. Sana 1979 as Agricultural worker

Ananda Kora 1975 - do -

Madhu Sudan Mondal 1979 as Rain Man

Nemai Ch. Mondal 1978 as Combing Man

Tarapada Bagdi 1978 as Agricultural worker

Mana Mardy 1978 as Combing Man

Sankar Das 1979 as Rope Line Man

Lal Mohan Rehani 1978 as Agricultural worker

Joydeb Mondal 1978 as Rain Man

Adhar Ch. Mondal 1979 as Agricultural worker

Jarman Mal 1973 as Combing Man

Senapoti Routh 1971 as Agricultural worker

Narayan Chakraborty 1971 - do -

Madhusudan Bhandari - do -

Anil Ghosh - do -

Bijoy Kr. Saha - do -

Jagadananda Mali 1978 as Agricultural worker

40.Saktipada Maji 1971 as Rope Line Man

Netai Ch. Pal 1978 as Rope Line Man

Gurupada Mal 1979 as Rain Man

Madhu Bhandari 1978 as Rope Line Man

Kalyan Dey 1978 as Agricultural worker

Pravakar Saha 1978 as Rain Man

Bikash Ch. Adhikari 1979 as Agricultural worker

Sakti Sutradhar 1978..- do -

Amulya Ghosh 1979 - do -

Fani Saha 1979 - do -

Shibiai Mardy 1978 - do -

Nemai Roy 1978 - do -

Subhas Mondal 1978 as Combing Man

Iswan Rehani 1979 as Agricultural worker

Manik Mondal 1979 as Combing Man

Sahadhar Saha 1979 as Yarnman

Madhusudan Bharati 1979 as Agricultural worker

Nemai Ghosh 1979 - do -

Kishan Murku 1979 - do -

Madan Murmu 1979 as worker in Extruction Section

Mariman Mal 1979 as Agricultural worker

Narayan Ghosh 1978 as Rope Line Man

Deben Tudu 1975 - do -

Soren Murmu 1979 as Agricultural worker

Radhashyam Bhandari 1978 - do -

Hida Kisku 1979 - do -

Lakshman Mal 1978 - do -

Badal Ch. Mondal 1978 as Yarnman

Baburam Murmu 1971 - do -

Ramnarayan Pathak 1979 as Agricultural worker

70.Hemsankar Hazra 1973 - do -

Biren Gope 1978 as Rope Line Man

Bhim Bhandari 1979 as Agricultural worker

Kharu Tudu 1979 as Agricultural worker

Mondal Mondal 1978 - do -

Mahadev Paul 1979 - do -

Gangadhar Rehani 1979 - do -

Kalam Beisra 1979 - do -

Narayan Ch. Mondal 1972 - do -

Ukil Tudu 1972 as Yarnman

Rakhal Sore 1979 as Agricultural worker

Khepa Soren 1,979 - do -

Kahar Murmu 1979 - do -

Mari Hasda 1979 - do -

Thakur Mardy 1979 - do -

Nikhil Mondal 1978 as Yarnman

Beneswar Murmu 1978 as Rope Line Man

Anil Bhandari 1979 - do -.

Budhan Rehani 1973 as Agricultural worker

Kanak Kanti Ghosh 1972 as Rope Line Man

Banka Beari Saha 1979 as Agricultural worker

Arabinda Sikdar 1971 as Rope Line Man

Malin Murmu 1978 - do -

Babusore Murmu 1978 as Mechanic Helper

Tapan Kr. Saha 1973 as Holderman

Jagai Bagdi 1978 - do -

Madan Mondal 1971 - do -

Gopal Ch. Saha 1979 - do -

Bhimsen Mondal 1973 as Holderman

Nimai Ch. Das 1978 - do -

Atun Ch. Routh 1973 - do -

Japan Ch. Mondal 1978 - do -

Durga Roy 1978 - do -

Jagadisgh Mondal 1978 - do -

Naresh Ghosh 1978 - do -

Chandi Ghoroi 1978 - do -

Ashoke Dey 1973 as Mechanic Helper

Bijoy Roy 1978 as Mechanic Helper

Lakshman Roy 1979 as Holderman

Shibapada Manna 1971 - do -

Smt. Debini Soren 1979 as Agricultural worker

" Sanodi Hemram 1971 - do -

" Patarani Heram 1979 - do -

" Surumani Mardy 1979 - do -

" Mahi Hasda 1979 - do -

" Fulmoni Powria 1978 - do -

" Kalindi Spren 1978 - do -

" Panmoni Hemram 1978 - do -

" Sajani Hemram 1978 - do -

" Sajani Kisku 1979 - do -

" Lakshiram Soren 1978 - do -

121 " Parameswar Mardy 1978 - do -

" Satilal Mardy 1978 - do -

" Mahaprasad Saha 1978 - do -

In the background of the dates of the birth in service some starting instances are quoted above. The petitioners presented this writ application before this Hon''ble Court on 17th June, 1983. On July 25, 1983 Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. passed the following order : -

" Let this matter stand adjourned for four weeks from date. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo regarding the appointments of the petitioners".

Again the matter came up for hearing before G. N. Roy, J. on October 4, 1983 when the following orders were passed : -

" Mr. B. P. Banerjee (Mentioned) - for the petitioner : Adjourned till three days after vacation. Interim order already granted will continue until futher orders".

Thereafter, an application for contempt was filed by the petitioners and the following order was passed on 18th January, 1985 : -

" Re : Contempt application dated 27/2/84

Mr. B. P. Ghosh - for the petitioners.

It is stated by Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioners that when this applcation was filed payment has been made in terms of the order of this Court. I do not, therefore, wish to proceed with the application any further, which stands disposed of".

Then this writ application was also listed for hearing on December 14, 1987 when this Court passed the following order :-

" Let A/O be filed within three weeks and reply thereto within one week thereafter.

The matter will come up for hearing after four weeks, records of the case be produced at the time of hearing. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondents and file A/S to that effect at the time of hearing. Let the matter be treated heard-in-part by me".

Sri Nirode Baran Roy, working in the Office of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Birbhum as Upper Division Clerk filed affidavit-in-opposition on 18th January, 1988 on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 6. The competence and authority of Shri Nirode Baran Roy to affirm the affidavit-in-opposition has been questioned before this Court.

The writ petitioners stand aggrieved by non-consideration of their case for absorption in the regular establishment and as also failure of the respondents to consider the proposal placed before the concerned Authorities by Farm Manager, Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum pursuant to Memo No. 7 dated January 11, 1982. The said Memo is quoted below : -

" In reference to the subject under your Memo No. cited above, I am submitting herewith the consolidated proposals (in duplicate) as per extract from notes and orders in Agriculture Department File No. 3E/48/81 dated 24/7/81 for creation of "D" Category of post for absorption of daily rated workers of this Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum.

This is for your kind information and taking necessary action".

An extract from Notes and Orders of Agriculture Department''s File No. 3E/48/81 dated 24/7/81 is enclosed with the said Memo No. 7 dated 11th January, 1982. The particulars Of the first year appointment are contained in the said Tabular Statement under Column No. 5.

Arbitrary, unwarranted and unauthorised actions of the respondents in keeping the grievances of the petitioners in abeyance for decades together shock the conscience of the Court. The grievances of the petitioners present extreme form of naked exploitation by the respondents before this Court.

The scheme for Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum was sanctioned by the Government. The Farm Manager, Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum sent a proposal by his Memo No. 7 dated 11th January, 1982. The said Memo is quoted in extenso. It is appropriate for this Court to refer to the Circular which was sent on July 24, 1981 by the Deputy Secretary, Agricultural Department to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Birbhum. The said Memo is quoted below : -

" EXTRACT FROM NOTES AND ORDERS IN AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT.

FILE No. 3E/48/81

Dt. 24-7-1981

For facility of examination of the case, the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal may be requested to furnish a conolidated statement showing the following : -

Name of the Worker :

Date of Birth :

Educational

Qualification :

Year of first

appointment :

Nature of appointment -

Casual/daily rated/master roll worker -

Name of the Farm or Office

where appointed :

Name of work performed :

Number of vacant group D posts if any, in the Farm Office/District where the workers are appointed :

Total number of D group

posts required :

An extract forwarded vide Memo. No. 5078 (60) dated 28/30.10.81 contained in file No. 3E/4 8/81 of Agriculture Department to the Principal Agricultural Officer by the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal, Birbhum for creation of ''D'' category of post for absorption of casual/daily rated and such other workers under Agricultural Directorate is quoted below:-

" The consolidated proposal, as desired by the Govt. is required to be drawn up on the basis of the items of information stated therein and be sent to this office in duplicate for submission to Government.

Each of the ranges including the G.T. Cs will constitute one unit while the Research Stations and Research Laboratories including Research Officers will form one unit according to this office memo. no. 4266(60) dt. 12.8.81. The proposal for creating such ''D'' Group posts should be submitted to Head of Research Station while P.A.O. and Dist. Agriculture Officers will send their proposal in this respect to Joint Director of Agriculture Range for comment. The Joint Director of Agriculture and the Heads of Research would then compile and sent the consolidated proposals (in duplicate) to this office for submission to the Govt. An early submission of the proposals is required.

On May 16, 1983 Joint Director of Agriculture, Bankura Range, Bankura sent another Memo to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Birbhum. The said Memo is quoted below : -

" In inviting reference to the above correspondence, I am to request you to place the following instructions of the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal conveyed under his above memo, in respect of engagement of labourers at Rajnagar Sisal Farm.

The action taken may please be intimated to the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal with copy to this office".

Some of the writ petitioners have been working in the Sisal Plantation Farm since 1956 without being absorbed in the regular establishment. Thirty five years passed by but no absorption could be effected. Some of the petitioners have been working for 30 years without any absorption. Some of the petitioners also have been working for more than two and a half decades without any decision of the authority to absorb them in the regular establishment. The respondents without having least applicator of mind and/or without considering the memo dated 3rd August, 1979 which should be followed in the matter of absorption of causal and such other categories of workers, are depriving the petitioners; paragraph 3 & 4 of the said memo are quoted below : -

"3. Casual and such other categories of workers who have been engaged in a perennial type of work for a continuous period of more than three years may be absorbed in the regular establishments on temporary basis in existing vacancies. If suitable vacancies are not available necessary steps may be taken by the respective authorities to create the requisite number of posts for the purpose of absorption of such categories of workers in consultation with the Finance Department.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the recruitment policy circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, 5% of vacancies against the quota of 70% earmarked for recruitment through Employment Exchange shall be kept reserved for absorption of those casual and such other categories of workers, who are already engaged in perennial type of work and have rendered at least 240 days service in a year but have not completed three years'' service as yet."

The petitioners are engaged in a perennial type of work at Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum under the Directorate of Agriculture, West Bengal for a continuous period of more than 3 years and also have rendered at least 240 days service in a year. The Director of Agriculture without taking any steps for absorption of the petitioners in regular vacancies, is taking steps to discontinue services of the petitioners by engaging them on rotational basis. By reason of memorandum dated 3.8.79 a right has been conferred upon the petitioner''s to be permanently absorbed in the regular vacancies and their services cannot be discontinued at this stage on the plea of rotational system.

The direction of the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal imposed an absolute embargo on the right of the petitioners to be absorbed in regular vacancy or in the regular establishment. According to the petitioners the said direction is wholly unauthorised and without jurisdiction.

Mr. A. N. Roy, Ld. Advocate duly assisted by B. P. Ghose, Advocate seriously assinted the actions of the respondents for the following reasons:-

" The State Govt. being a model employer deliberately and consciously acted in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. It is also claimed by Mr. Ray that the case of the petitioners present a very tragic fate of the daily rated employees who suffered arbitrary treatment of the respondents by reason of the failure of the respondent to accord the benefits of absorption in service. It is also urged by Mr, Roy that it is inconceivable that though State Govt. has pronounced its welfare measure for the employees for decades together it did not deem fit and proper to absorb the employees who are treated as daily rated employees for more than 2 and 1/2 decades in some case and more than one decade in other cases. The aspiration of the people namely the employees for equal pay for equal work as also the benefit of absorption of the petitioners which affects the finer graces of life as also other service benefits thus stand frustrated. Mr. Roy went further by contending that the State is expected to act reasonably, fairly and in accordance with the fundamentals of equality. It is a case where the violation of fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) is asserted. No rational justification has been offered by the concerned authority in the matter of denying the benefit of absorption treating the service of the petitioners on regular basis. Mr. Roy referred to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court made in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC at page 879; Dhirendra Nath Chamli v. State of U. P. reported in (1986/1 SC 369; and Ramchandra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 541."

Unfortunately the affidavit-in-opposition has been affirmed by an Upper Division Assistant on behalf of respondents working in the office of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Birbhum and allegations in the writ application raising serious grievances are sought to be dealt with by an Upper Division Assistant who according to me, is not competent to affirm the affidavit. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted below:-

" With reference to the allegation made in paragraph No. 1 of the petition, I say that the petitioners are casual, daily rated and Muster Roll labourers of Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar and are engaged on the basis of "no work no pay". They are engaged on various work of the said farm as per work load with intervening gaps weekly rest day in each week without pay. Number of labourers engaged vary year to year".

The said affidavit does not deal with Annexure ''B'' which presents the year of first appointment of the petitioners. It is claimed by the concerned respondents that the job of the petitioners in the said Farm is of seasonal character by reason of the fact that the seedling of sisal can be planted from july to September and the Sisal is a drought resistant plant and it never requires irrigation. After planting of the seedlings, one weeding is exercised in the month of October-November. The collection of Sisal leaves for fibre extraction start from 3rd year after planting. The leaves are harvested from each Sisal plant thrice during the period from November to june next year. Relevant portions of paragraph 6 is also quoted below

" I further say that the seedlings of Sisal can be planted from july to September and not throughout the year. Sisal is a drought resistant plant, it never requires irrigation. After planting of the seedlings, one weeding is exercised in the month of October-November as such the filed work is seasonal. The Collection of Sisal leaves for fibre extraction start from 3rd year after planting. The leaves are harvested from each Sisal plant thrice during the period from November to june next year and the leaves are not harvested from July to October when the new leaves emerge. As such the leave are not cut throughout he year in which case the entire plantarion will be perished."

Relevant portion of paragraph 7 of A/O reads thus : -

" After harvest of Sisal leaves, they are placed in the hauler and fibre is then obtained direct. The leaves never require washing and drying. After drying of fibres in bright sun-shine for 2 to 3 days, there are bundled and stored. For preparation of ropes, fibres are combed and yarned. A few such yarns twisted together to make rope."

The respondents without dealing with the individual cases of the petitioners as referred to in Annexure-D made a wild assertion in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition which are shocking and startling. Paragraphs 8 & 19 read thus :-

"8. I further say that it is not the fact that all the petitioners have completed work for more than three years, as will be evident from "Annexure D" of the writ petition. It is also not the fact that the petitioners have every year worked more than 240 days in the said farm.

Casual labourers of Government Agricultural Farms under the State as per provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. This benefit is in vogue in Rajnagar Sisal Farm from 1980. The petitioners earn wages and not salary. Provident Fund contribution are not deducted from their Muster Roll. After payment of workers deposit their respective share to the Farm Manager, who in turn issued receipt as per the system."

Paragraph 15 of the A/O refers to the absorption of three employees whose names appeared against the serial Nos.1, 21 and 68.

It is also claimed that rotation system of daily rated casual workers was invoked since the inception of the Farm.

It is strange and unfortunate that an Upper Division Assistant working in the Office of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Birbhum affirmed the said affidavit without dealing with the individual cases of the petitioners as referred to in Annexure - D and made wild assertion without any supporting materials. The records of the case were not produced. The respondents deliberately held back the Court from looking at the records. Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents being a model employer deliberately and consciously acted in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. Article 39(d) of the Constitution confers right upon the workers or employees to have equal pay for equal work. The respondents on their own snowing could not have any knowledge as regards the year of first appointment nor did they deal with the nature of work performed by the petitioners as shown in column No. 8. The doctrine for equal pay for equal work as urged by Mr. Roy is applicable to persons employed on daily wage basis.

Affidavit-in-opposition instead of'' dealing with the basic and fundamental grievances of the petitioners presents matters extraneous to the claims of the petitioners. Mr. Roy referred to a number of judgments of Supreme Court which are quoted below : -

(1) Randhir Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC at page 879.

(2) Dhirendra Nath Chamoli v. State of U. P. reported in (1986)1 SCC 369.

(3) P. K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 541.

There being no effective denial of the basic assertions as made by the petitioners with reference to the Annexure''D'' which contained the names of workers, dates of birth, educational qualifications, year of first appointment, nature of appointment-Casual/daily rated/Muster Roll workers, name of the Farm or the Office where appointed, nature of work performed, the Court cannot but accept the plea as taken by the petitioners and also accept the contention of Mr. Roy that it is inconceivable that the State Government has pronounced its welfare measure for the employees for decades together but it never deemed fit and proper to absord the employees who are treated as daily rated employees for more than two and a half decades in some cases and more than one decade in other cases. The aspirations of the people namely the employees for equal pay for equal work as also the benefit of absorption of the petitioners which affects the finer graces of life as also other service benefits thus stand frustrated. The contention of Mr. Roy is that the State is expected to act reasonably, fairly and in accordance with the fundamentals of equality. It is a case where the violation of fundamental rights, as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution, is alleged. No case of rational justification for denial of benefits to the petitioners has been made out by the respondent. The contention of Mr. Chatterjee is that the claim of the petitioners is wholly without any foundation or basis, and the petitioners could not claim the benefits as they never worked for 240 days in a year, far less to speak of for 3 years. It is unfortunate that the respondents did not produce relevant records nor did they deal with the basic assertions of the petitioners as are indicated above.

It is shocking and startling that the respondents did not deal with the fact that the Farm Manager, Sisal Plantation Farm, Rajnagar, Birbhum received from Rabi Nandi and other 284 labourers a sum of Rs.3,971.50 for the month of February, 1983 towards the Employees'' General Provident Fund Account. Similarly, in page 28 of the writ petition it is shown that an amount of Rs.433275 has been deducted on account of General Provident Fund for the month of January, 1983 from Rabi Nandi and other 284 labourers which remain unchallenged. The issue as regards the claim of the petitioners that they rendered 240 days'' service in a year was not considered. The State Government should have made a fair disclosure of the facts which they have preferred not to do. The petitioners suffered deprivation of rights under Article 14, and 16 duly supplemented by Article 39(d) of the Constitution.

The Court should not and could not be oblivious of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RandhirSingh v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). Paragraphs 1 & 8 of the said Judgment is quoted below:-

" 1. ''Equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims; so the petitioner asserted. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principle, the constitutional goal of ''equal pay for equal work for both men and women''. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and Article 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. So the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 and has asked us to direct the respondents to give him his due, the same as they have given others like him. True, he is the merest microbe in the mightly organism of the State, a little cog in a giant wheel. But, the glory of our Constitution is that it enables him to directly approach the highest court in the land for redress. It is a. matter of no little pride and satisfaction to us that he has done so. Hither to the equality, clauses of the Constitution, as other articles of the Constitution guaranteeing fundamental and other rights, were most often invoked by the privileged classes for their protection and advancement and for a ''fair and satisfactory'' distribution of the buttered loaves amongst themselves. Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations roused as a consequence, and the forward looking posture of this Court, the underpriviledged also are clamouring for their rights and are seeking the intervention of the Court with touching faith and confidence in the Court. The Judges of the Court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the guest of the five star hotel.

It is true that the principle ''equal pay for equal work'' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims ''equal pay for equal work for both men and women'' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Govermental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unferrered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them ana it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the work ''Socialist'' must mean something. Even if it does not mean ''To each according to his need'', it must at least mean "equal pay for equal work''. The principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g. section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of section III of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too. Under provisions in S.31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Agrentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with section 3 of the Grundgestz of the German Federal Republic, and clause 7, section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance (vide: International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy P. 265). The Preamble of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of ''equal remuneration for work of equal value'' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled." Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle "equal pay for equal work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."

In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., which was relied on in the subsequent judgments referred to above, I deem fit and proper to direct the respondents to take imediate steps for absorption of the petitioners in the regular vacancies in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court as referred to above. The absorption of the petitioners must be effected without any further loss of time. While considering the absorption of the petitioners the concerned authorities should bear in mind that all the petitioners are eligible for absorption in terms of the Memo dated August 3, 1979. Denials of such absorption worked out economic injustice and utter prejudice to the petitioners. The Court cannot allow such wrong or injustice to be the committed by the respondents. In all fairness, the State is required to take steps for the absorption of the petitioners in a phased manner preferably within a period of one year from date. Absorption in phased manner as is indicated above shall be effected. The services of the petitioners till such absorption is one shall not be disturbed and/or adversely affected. After absorption the petitioners shall be accorded all the service benefits which would have been accrued to them had they been absorbed in terms of the proposal as contained in Annexure ''D'' read with Memorandum dated August 3, 1979.

The application. is thus allowed with costs assessed at 20 GMs. to be paid by the State Respondents to Cancer Research Institute, Thakurpuku Calcutta within a period of one month from date.

The petitioners do not get even the statutory minimum wages. Nonpayment of minimum wages amounts to violation of Article 23 of the Constitution. Where persons are suffering from hunger or starvation, when they have no recourses at all to fight disease or to feed their wives and children or even to hide their nakedness, where utter grinding poverty has broken their back and reduced them to a state of helplessman and despair and where no other employment is available to alleviate the rigours of poverty, they would have no choice but to accept any work that comes their way. It is indeed a very unfortunate chapter of apathy and indifference of the respondents towards the human problems. The petitioners go in darkness, they return in darkness. Their whole life is full of darkness. The State cannot afford any ray of life. Let an epilohue be placed "legal justice abates economic injustice". "The dejure equality accentuates defacto inequality."