2000 INSC 1079
                               SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    Food Corporation of India

                                                Versus

                                      Shyamal K. Chatterjee

                         ( S. Rajendra Babu and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.)

                              Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-65 of 1998.

                                             28.09.2000

JUDGMENT

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - The respondents, who are contract casual workers, filed a
writ petition before the High Court contending that in view of the order of the High
Court dated August 13, 1993 in FMAT No. 3614 of 1992, they are entitled to wages
on par with class IV employees of the appellant and sought for directions to make
such payment as per the pay revised from time to time. The appellant opposed the
claim made in the writ petition on the ground that against the order of the Calcutta
High Court in FMAT No. 3614 of 1992, an appeal by special leave was filed before
this Court which was disposed of with certain observations. The order of the High
Court in FMAT No. 3614 of 1992, having merged in the order of this Court and this
Court having not specifically stated that the wages payable to the respondents would
be on par with class IV employees of the appellant, the payment of wages as claimed
by the casual workers is untenable.

2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court analyzing the order of the High Court
in FMAT No. 3614 of 1992 and the order of this Court concluded that this Court
having affirmed the reasoning of the Division Bench and there is no conflict thereto.
The appellant appears to be piqued by the fact that the casual workers have to be paid
at the enhanced wages of the class IV workers and they have no objection to pay at
the old rates at which they had been paid. The contention that the casual workers
cannot be put on par with the workers in the regular service was not allowed to be
raised in view of the fact that the issue had been determined finally between the
parties inter se, by the orders made in the earlier proceedings. Thus, the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition. In the writ appeal against this order, the
arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge were reiterated. The Division
Bench again examined the contentions of the appellant with reference to the orders of
the High Court and of this Court in the earlier proceedings and held that the view
taken by the learned Single Judge is justified and didn't interfere with the same
except to reduce the period for compliance.

3. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a careful
analysis of the reasoning of this Court's order would indicate that what was observed
was that there should be no disparity between the different kinds of casual workers
and no other reasoning had been given in the said order and inasmuch as the
payments had been made on a certain basis, that position was not disturbed, which
means that they would not be entitled to enhanced payments given to the class IV
employees. It is submitted that there has been no enquiry at all as to the parity
between the class IV employees and the casual workers. We will examine each of
these contentions. On the earlier occasion, materials had been placed before the
Court in the shape of a letter sent by Shri S.N. Singh, Officer on Special Duty,
Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, to the following effect :

"I am directed to refer to your letter No. F/34/18/5/79 dated 1.6.1979 on the above
subject and to say that minimum rates of wages in respect of office establishments
employees have not yet been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There is,
therefore, no statutory minimum rates of wages for such employees. The minimum
rates of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for employees employed
in organised sector are allowed to persons employed either as a badli or on casual or
temporary basis. The rate is for the job and not for the person. The nature of the
employment doesn't in any way influence the rates of wages of casual and temporary
workmen even in Government undertaking and establishment.

On the basis of the aforesaid principle the daily rate of casual workers should be
1/26th of the monthly wages of class IV employees."

4. With regard to the nature of the work performed by the respondents as casual
workers, the Assistant Department Manager of the appellant at Bankura issued the
following certificate :

"Certified that 59 casual labourers are working under M.R.M./F.S.D. Bikna since
1976. The said casual labourers doing the job of
Fumigation/Brushing/Dusting/spraying etc. which are actually the work of class IV
staff. They are doing their job with satisfaction of F.C.I. and they have gathered
sufficient knowledge about the work they person (perform ?) as stated above."

5. The letter of the Labour Department and the certificate issued by the Assistant
Department Manager of the appellant at Bankura are in conformity with Rule
25(2)(v)(a) of the Central Rules framed under Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970. These two materials clearly indicate that the respondents were
doing the job, which is on par with the work of class IV employees. Further the
wages to be payable to them on daily rate would be 1/26th of the monthly wages of
the class IV employees. These materials were available before the High Court at the
time of disposal of FMAT No. 3614 of 1992 and at the time when an interim order
was granted in yet another proceeding wherein this principle was adopted. Therefore,
the grievance sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellant that
there has been no inquiry as to parity with regard to class IV employees and the
wages payable to the casual workers is palpably incorrect and is not borne out by
record at all.

6. This Court on the earlier occasion, after setting out certain principles that there
should be no distinction amongst different classes of workers, observed as under :

"We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no
interference is called for by this Court. We, however, make it clear that we are not
adjudicating in respect of any other right or claim of the respondents. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case (there) should
be no order as to costs."

7. Further, the High Court had given a finding that since some casual workers
appointed directly by the appellant and some employed by the contractors are
working in the same godown and on the same work, there could not be any scope for
making any difference and to deny equal pay for equal work. Proceeding further it
was stated that on the principles set out earlier with reference to the letter of the
Labour Department, the wages will have to be paid regularly to the respondent at the
same rate at which it was paid to the regular employees of the appellant doing
identical work which has to be worked out on daily rate basis from March, 1989.
This was the order that was affirmed by this Court and was not interfered with. It is
difficult for us to comprehend on what basis the appellant can make any complaint
now except to engage themselves in nit-picking and being over ingenious in making
submissions before the Court. The position is, therefore, clear to the effect that this
appeal is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.
10,000/-.

Appeal dismissed.