Bengaluru: In a relief for 12 teachers who worked for an aided school for many years at a consolidated salary of just Rs 500 per month, the high court has directed the payment of wages on par with the minimum of the payscale of regularly engaged employees holding the post admitted to grant-in-aid vis-a-vis the period of work. The institution where the petitioners worked has to settle the wage arrears in three months.
KR Vishwanatha and 11 others worked for varying periods in the schools run by TS Subbanna Sarvajanika Education Trust, Mysuru. Except for one, KA Manjunath, a physical education teacher, the others were Kannada/arts teachers. On Aug 16, 2018, they submitted a representation requesting regularisation, which was rejected by the management, who sought to conduct interviews to induct freshers in their place.
In 2019, as their fresh representation was rejected, the teachers approached the high court, seeking relief on the premise of ‘equal pay for equal work‘. The state govt asserted that the petitioners were not selected through recruitment process; they were working in the management institution for several years without appointment order, and the engagement of the petitioners was regarding posts not admitted to grant-in-aid and, hence it’s not binding on the govt.
After perusing the materials on record and referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others vs Union of India case, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav pointed out that the top court specified that labour rendered without free will at meagre wages with an expectation that their posts would be admitted to grant-in-aid would fall squarely in the ambit of forced labour contemplated under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
The judge noted that in the State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others case, the SC also laid down the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. In view of the same, the judge directed the Trust to pay the petitioners the wages for the period of work on par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged employees.
QUOTE
Insofar as the compensation to the petitioners for work rendered at Rs 500 per month, which is below the minimum wage fixed, the petitioners are entitled to compensation without reference to the financial position of the institution. When the violation of rights conferred under Article 23 of the Constitution is established, financial stringency cannot be a consideration to tie the hands of the court from directing the institution to compensate the petitioners adequately
The high court