‘Casual workers need not be paid the salary of regular workers, they are entitled only for minimum wages,’ the Supreme Court of India gave this order in its judgement in the case ‘State of Orissa and Ors. versus Balaram Sahu and Ors.’ This judgement was delivered by a Division Bench of two judges - Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice H.K. Sema in a case filed by NMR workers of Orissa who demanded payment of remuneration on the same scale and basis paid to regular employed staff.

The NMR workers had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa arguing that since they discharge the same duties and function of the regular employees they are entitled to equal wages under the principle of equal pay for equal work. The judges of the Orissa High Court had ordered that the workmen should be given the same pay scale as that drawn by regular hands with effect from the date of filing the writ petition i.e, 2 January,1990. It also directed that those employees who have served continuously for a period of five years should be regularised. The State of Orissa complied with the regularisation of casual workers, but challenged the High Court’s judgement which granted equal pay for the casual workers with their counterparts working on regular basis. However, the Supreme Court in its judgement set aside the order of Orissa High Court and directed that the casual workers have to be paid only minimum wages.

The Case and the Argument

While arguing the case the State had relied heavily upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh. In that case, after discussing all the previous pronouncements of the court, it held that:
“it is therefore clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be difference in education or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holder brings to the job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify difference in pay scale on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job”.

The court on the facts of that case held that the daily wagers cannot be treated on par with persons in regular service of the state holding similar posts. According to the court the daily wagers are not required to possess the qualifications, the requirement of age or need to be selected in a manner similar to regular employees. For them the provisions relating to transfer and disciplinary procedures do not apply. The final verdict of the Court in that case was that the causal workers could not be equated with regular workmen for the purpose of their wages.

The case which the workmen relied upon was the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare. In this case, the Supreme Court was not directly concerned with the payment of equal wages but dealt with the unfair trade practices under a state act. The judgment in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh, the Court was mainly concerned with regularisation of ad-hoc/ temporary employees.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court held that the decision in Jasmer Singh applied directly to this case. It ordered that respondent workers cannot hold any posts to claim any comparison with the regular and permanent staff including a claim for equal pay and allowances. Another major flaw pointed out by the Supreme Court judges was that the workers had not placed enough materials before the High Court to prove the nature of duties of either categories. Due to this flaw, the Court could not render a finding as to whether the work performed by the casual workers was similar to that of the regular workers. The Supreme Court states that for that reason alone the High Court should not have awarded equal pay to the workmen. The court also held that to claim relief on the basis of equality, the workers should have substantiated a clear cut basis of equivalence and resultant hostile discrimination.

Concurring with the High Court judgement, the Supreme Court also upheld the direction for regularisation of the casual workers. The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court in so far as it has ordered to pay the NMR/ daily wager/ casual workers equal pay to that of the regular employed staff.

Non Brahmins can become Priests: SC

The Supreme Court of India, giving a jolt to the orthodox religious order, has ruled that non-Brahmins including all classes and caste of Hindus, can also perform religious ceremonies and work as temple priests as long as they are well versed with the relevant Hindu rituals and rites.

This judgement was given by a bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice Doraiswamy Raju on a disputed case of the appointment of a non-Malayali Brahmin as the priest of an ancient temple managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

The bench upheld a Kerala High Court judgment, which says that it was not necessary that only an unqualified Brahmin, not versed with the rituals, could become the priest of the temple. The Bench referred to a 1966 judgment, which said: "Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahminism."

The Court while giving the judgement referred to Article 17 of the Constitution that exterminates untouchability. The court also recalled the suggestion made in the Bhagwat Gita. It also referred to Mahatama Gandhi`s vision to do away with all caste and creed based discriminations and recognition of man through his actions, irrespective of the caste to which he may belong at the time of birth.

The court said, "any custom or usage irrespective of even any proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the specific mandate of the constitution and law by parliament".

The court added: "No usage which is found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law of the land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted or upheld by courts in the country".