To Claim Remuneration For Work Discharged, One Has To Merely Establish Due Discharge Of Duties', MPHC Reprimands State Functionaries For Being Guilty Of Exploitation Of Labour/Begar [Read Order]

"For the purpose of enforcing a right to claim remuneration for the work discharged, the employee need not establish the legality of his appointment or continuance in service but has to merely establish due discharge of duties."

The Single Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing the plea of one Ruby Jadon, who claimed that she was appointed as Data Entry Operator for a period of three months (vide appointment order dated 05.05.2018) at the Child Surgery Unit in Government Medical College Gwalior.

Though there was no order issued for extension (after the initial 3 months) but she was allowed to discharge her duties for 12 more months (August 2018 to July 2019), yet no the salary was paid for the said 12 months period.

In other words, she claimed that out of the total period of one year and three months for which she worked, the salary was paid to her for three months only. Meaning thereby, that the period from August 2018 to July 2019 is the period during which petitioner despite having discharged her duties as Data Entry Operator was not paid a salary and which was the subject matter of the petition.

Arguments put forth

The petitioner raised the ground of petitioner being subjected to begar which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India and for which reliance was placed on People's Union For Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India AIR 1982 (3) SCC 235 and State of Gujarat & Another Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164.

The respondents No. 3 & 4 filed their response stating that the petitioner had been appointed for a period of 3 months, whereafter her appointment came to an end by efflux of time, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim salary beyond the said period.

Another objection was raised of incompetency of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gwalior to issue the appointment order of the petitioner.

In short, the only contention of the respondents was that beyond the period of three months of the initial tenure of appointment, there was neither any fresh order nor extension of service qua the petitioner.

The question before the Court

The question which arose for Court's consideration was related to the right of employee to claim salary for the period when though the employee has worked and discharged duties but without the backing of any order of appointment.

Court's Observation

The Court acknowledged the fact that the Constitution of India, under Article 23 prohibits any kind of begar or forced labour.

The Court observed that the mandate of Article 23 not only prohibits begar and forced labour but also renders such vices to be offence punishable under law.

While relying on the Apex Court's ruling in the Case of People's Union For Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India 1982 (3) SCC 235 and Allahabad High Court's Judgment in the case of Rekha Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (2018) 4 All LJ 145, the Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded,

"What comes out loud and clear is that for the purpose of enforcing a right to claim remuneration for the work discharged, the employee need not establish the legality of his appointment or continuance in service but has to merely establish due discharge of duties. Once the employee establishes the discharge of duties as assigned by the employer, the burden shifts upon the employer to either deny the discharge of duties by the employee or to pay the due remuneration to the employee for the work done."

The Court further remarked,

"Besides these two options, there is no third option available to the employer and any attempt to project the third option would lead to the drawing of an adverse inference against the employer of being guilty of exploitation of labour/begar."

The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner, apart from the initial three months period for which she received salary also worked for a period from August 2018 to July 2019 as per the duty certificates provided by her which are genuine and they reveal the reality that the "petitioner discharged the duty as Data Entry Operator at the Surgery Department in the medical college Gwalior".

Consequently, the prayer made by the petitioner for paying salary/pay/remuneration for the period from August 2018 to July 2019 was held to be justified.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed to the extent indicated below:

1. The respondents No.2, 3 & 4 were directed to pay the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the period from August 2018 to July 2019.

2. The aforesaid direction for payment of salary for the said period be complied within a period of 30 days, from the date of production of the copy of this order, by crediting the amount in the bank account of the petitioner.

3. Since the respondents are held guilty of begar which is constitutionally prohibited, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the arrears of salary paid pursuant to aforesaid direction from the due date till the date of payment.

4. The functionaries of the State, in this case, have acted in a manner which defies their claim of being a welfare state by indulging in a constitutionally prohibited vice of begar. The State is thus saddled with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees) which shall be paid as a donation in the account of the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for the purpose of assistance and rehabilitation of those members of the Bar, who are facing financial distress due to Lockdown and restrictive functioning of the courts owing to ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

Case Details:

Case Title: Ruby Jadon v. State Of M.P. & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 27370/2019

Quorum: Justice Sheel Nagu

Appearance: Advocate Prashant Sharma (For the Petitioner); Panel Lawyer Abhishek Mishra (for Respondents/state); Advocate Nidhi Patankar, (for Respondent nos. 3 and 4).