Paying ₹450 Per Month Is 'Forced Labour' & Violation Of Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt To Pay Minimum Wages To A IV Class Employee

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that it was beyond comprehension as to how the state government could exploit a Class-IV employee by continuing to pay him Rs 450 per month for the last 20 years.

In this regard, importantly, the Court remarked thus:

"In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as recorded above, the prescription of Rs. 450/- per month as wages vide Government Order dated 01.07.1992 is clearly a "other form of forced labour" and is in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India."

The case in brief

The Court was presiding over a writ petition filed by one Tufail Ahmad Ansari, submitting that he was an employee with the MD Eye Hospital, Prayagraj, since June 2001 on a Class-IV post and he was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month since his initial engagement.

It was also stated that despite the petitioner being entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of 2016 Rules, the case of the petitioner was not being considered.

The Standing Counsel submitted that in terms of a Government Order of 1992, the wages of 'Kahar' were increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month, and that was being paid to the petitioner.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court observed that the question of "other forms of Forced Labour" finds its place in Article 23 of the Constitution of India and it came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union For Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 235, wherein the plight of the workers engaged in the construction for the Asian Games, was highlighted before the Supreme Court.

On the question as to whether a person is said to be providing Forced Labour if he is paid less than the minimum wages, in PUCL case (supra), the Top Court had held thus:

"We are therefore of the view that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words "forced labour" under Article 23. Such a person would be entitled to come to the court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 by asking the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the labour or service provided by him ceases to be "forced labour" and the breach of Article 23 is remedied."

Against this backdrop, the Court took into account the admission of the State of UP made through its standing counsel that the wages being paid to the petitioner wasn't the minimum wages prescribed in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

"This Court is unable to fathom as to how State can continue the exploitation of Class-IV post employees for about 20 years on the strength of Government Order, which has been relied upon by the Standing Counsel in support of his contention… If the stand of the Standing Counsel is accepted, this Court would also be guilty of ignoring the plight of ClassIV persons who are being exploited by the State for so long." the Court noted.

Lastly, the Court directed the state government to pay the minimum wages as prescribed in the State of Uttar Pradesh from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner i.e. 15.6.2001 after deducting the amounts paid to him.

Further, regarding his prayer seeking regularization, the Court took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in the State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi case and observed that the petitioner was entitled to regularization of service.

Significantly, referring to The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules, 2016 rules, the Court noted thus:

"Persons employed prior to 31.12.2001 are entitled to be considered for regularisation and as the petitioner is working on 'daily wages as defined under the Rules of 2016, the petitioner is clearly entitled to regularization in terms of the said rules."

Therefore, it was directed that the petitioner be regularized within 4 months of the order.

Case title - Tufail Ahmad Ansari v. State Of U P And 2 Others

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment