|Name of the Case||Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration|
|Citation||1992 AIR 789; 1992 SCC (4) 99; 1992 SCR (1) 565; 1992 SCALE (1)294; JT 1992 (1) 394;|
|Decided on||February 04,1992|
|Appellant||Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union|
|Bench/ Judges||SAWANT, P.B.JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)|
|Statutes/Constitution Involved||Constitution of India,1950|
|Related Articles||Article 14, 16, 19, 21, 41-Jawahar Rozgar Yojna|
The petitioners were employed under a limited period wage employment scheme for those below the poverty level. Afterward, on the idea of the said employment, they claimed a right to regularization. The Court specified “this couldn’t be permitted as it would discourage the elementary purpose of the scheme itself. They’re going to do more harm than good by depriving the several of the small income that they’ll get to stay them from starvation. They might also force the State to finish up the prevailing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. This is often to not say that the issues of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is often only to stress that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those that live below and above the poverty level, those in need of parts and people in need of financial condition, the educated and uneducated, the agricultural and concrete unemployed, etc.” In tandem with this are instances where the interest groups who benefit out of poverty, plan to prevent, restrict, or divert the alleviating effects of such measures.
The workmen filed the petition in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees to regularize their position under the employment scheme of government where they were hired to have the bread as well as some cash to survive under the same schemes. The workmen also claimed the payment of wages equal to the regular employees. Employment was given to poor people in rural areas. The objective of the Sixth Five Year Plan enlarged to alleviate rural poverty through the distribution of some to needy and poor people via providing employment.
Background of the Case
The workmen filed petitions for taken work from them as regular employees and an injunction prohibiting the termination of their services and the difference in wages paid to them in comparison to the regular employees. As per the scheme, employment was given to the poorer sections within the rural areas for food as well as a cash payment.
During the 6th Five Year Plan, the target of the program was enlarged to incorporate alleviation of rural poverty by the distribution of income in favor of the poor and therefore the needy population within the rural areas by providing employment opportunities to them. According to them, a scheme for the plantation of trees was haunted at various sites within the rural areas of Delhi. The labor was employed at these sites depending upon their availability in rural areas and without regard to any Employment Exchange either within the Union Territory of Delhi or anywhere else.
The Government, during the 5th and 6th Five Year Plan:
Graduates/Diploma-holders, including the petitioners, approached the DRDA and got daily wage employment under the said program.
Not any regular post created under the DRDA either for the Supervisors etc. or for the physical workers, since the schemes were financed by the government and therefore the DRDA was only the implementing machinery.
In 1988-90 the government announced a replacement scheme, called “Jawahar Lal Nehru Rozgar Yojna”, for intensive employment in backward districts where acute poverty and unemployment prevailed.
The Petitioners Filed the Writ Petitions:
Village Panchayats under the union territory of Delhi expired and therefore the administration of the Panchayats was carried on by the Block Development Officers.
The schemes under which the petitioners got employment were evolved with the limited resources at the disposal of the State to supply income for that rural poor who were below the poverty level and particularly during the periods once they were with none source of livelihood and, therefore, with none income whatsoever.
The object wasn’t to supply the proper to figure such even to the agricultural poor-much less to the unemployed generally.
To urge employment under the scheme and claim on the idea of the said employment, a right to regularization is to frustrate the scheme itself.
They would benefit a couple of at the value of the starving poor for whom the schemes were meant Territory of Delhi.
For regularization, there needs to be permanent posts or it must be proven that although the work is of normal and permanent nature, the device of appointing and keeping the workers on an unplanned or temporary basis has been resorted to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment.
The country has thus far not found it feasible to include the proper to livelihood as a fundamental right within the Constitution.
This is because the country has thus far not attained the capacity to ensure it, and not because it considers it any the less fundamental to life.
Article 41 of the Constitution of India, enjoins upon the State to form effective provision for securing an equivalent within the bounds of its economic capacity and development.
The Employment Program under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna:
It has been transferred to the village Panchayats. The Block Development Officers are administering the affairs of the Panchayats until fresh elections aren’t held.
The vesting of administration of the panchayats within the Block Development Officers during the intervening period doesn’t change the very fact that it’s the village Panchayats, which are allotted the funds for the agricultural Employment Programme under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna and it’s they who choose the works to be administered and therefore the necessary work-force to be used.
Regularization of employment is that the main issue claimed by the workmen hired on a daily wage basis.
Another issue was for an injunction prohibiting the termination of their employment and also for the difference in wages paid to them got to be those paid to the regular employees.
Constitution of India, 1950:- Article 14, 16, 19, 21, 41 `Jawahar Rozgar Yojna’- It was a Temporary Scheme which provided income on a daily wage employment basis to rural poor and landless laborers.
In Part IV, Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 41 orders to the State to make effective provisions for their people “within the limits of its economic capacity and development”.
Thus while giving the direction to the State, to ensure the right to work, the Constitution-makers thought it practical not to do so without qualifying the required criteria.
Right to figure and livelihood-
- Whether included in the right to life
- Whether recognized as a fundamental right
Labour Law: Daily wage workers Employment- Regularization-Factors for concern.
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959:- In Employment Exchange registration for employment (Qualified, Unskilled), recruitment through employment exchanges for necessity.
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.:-
The Court has not found it reasonable to integrate the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. The Court has not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any the less fundamental to life. Therefore, Part IV on Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 41 orders to the State to make effective provisions for their people “within the limits of its economic capacity and development”.
Thus, even giving the direction to the State, State has to ensure the right to work.
The Judgment by SAWANT, J., The petitioners provided occupation on daily wages have filed petitions for their absorption as regular employees and an injunction prohibiting the termination of their services and also for the difference in wages paid to them and people paid to the regular employees.
The petitions are attacked on behalf of the respondents contending as no scope for the absorption of the petitioners because they were employed on daily wages with clear terms of the schemes of their employment without provision for regularization of any workman.
To understand the controversy between the parties, it’s necessary to ask the facts concerning the utilization of the petitioners as brought on record by the respondents.
During the 5th Five Year Plan, the Central Government had formulated various schemes to supply wage- employment to agricultural and landless laborers during lean periods. Under this scheme, employment was given to the poorer sections of the population within the rural areas partly for food and partly for cash payment.
During the 6th Five Year Plan, the target of the program was enlarged to incorporate alleviation of rural poverty by the distribution of income in favor of the poor and therefore the needy population within the rural areas by providing employment opportunities to them.
With this view, a replacement program called the National Rural Employment Programme was started in October 1980 replacing the «Food for work» program.
During an equivalent Plan, another scheme called Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme was launched on August 15, 1983, concerning the same objective of generating surplus occupation in the rural areas principally for the landless workers.
The labor was employed at these sites depending upon their availability in rural areas and without regard to any Employment Exchange either within the Union Territory of Delhi or anywhere else.
For the Social Forestry Programme required knowledge of plantation and agricultural practices, some unemployed agricultural graduates/diploma-holders were able to work on a daily wage employment basis and got employment through the District Rural Development Agency, various officials, and non-officials.
The govt of India then decided to merge Rural Employment Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme also because of the Nehru Rozgar Yojna into one rural employment program to be referred to as Jawahar Rozgar Yojna.
The vesting of administration of the panchayats within the Block Development Officers during the intervening period doesn’t change the very fact that it’s the village panchayats, which are allotted the funds for the agricultural Employment program under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna and it’s they who choose the works to be administered and therefore the necessary work-force to be used.
The DRDA isn’t re-vested with the powers of implementing the utilization program. A subsequent important fact which needs to be borne in mind is that the Horticulture Department of the Delhi Administration and therefore the workers employed by the Delhi Administration within the said department, don’t have anything to try with the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna and its predecessor schemes and therefore the workers employed on daily wages basis by the DRDA under the said schemes.
It’s become necessary to worry this aspect because we notice from certain orders gone by this Court and produced before us that an honest deal of confusion between the two sets of workers has been liable for a number of them.
The Yojna has not and can’t have any sanctioned power of posts or workers. Even when the DRDA was executing the said Yojna they were being funded by the Central Government openly for the aim of giving employment under the said Yojna.
They had to make a decision the agricultural works which they might undertake within the next month and for that purpose to estimate within the last week of the preceding month the number of workers required for an equivalent.
The works had to be undertaken on a daily wage basis and as soon because the vacancies at the particular sites were over, the workers need to be shifted to other sites.
The workers were engaged from the areas concerned and people just like the petitioners who were willing to travel to the sites where the work was available, were also given the utilization under the scheme.
There was no scope for regularization since there has been no sanctioned post or the sanctioned strength of workers.
As against that, the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna could provide only 870 million man-days of work on an alternating basis in neighborhood projects.
To get employment under such a scheme and to say on the idea of the said employment, a right to regularization is to frustrate the scheme itself. The issues of these employed under such schemes to provide them with the financial condition and guarantee equal buy equal work.
During the 5th Five Year Plan, the Central Government had formulated various schemes to supply wage-employment to agricultural and landless laborers during lean periods. Under these employment schemes, workmen in rural areas leading to durable community haunted and a scheme for plantation of trees was haunted at various sites within the rural areas of Delhi via providing daily wage-employment to rural workmen. It depends upon their availability in rural areas and without regard to any Employment Exchange either within the Union Territory of Delhi or anywhere else. Article 37 though renders Directive Principles unenforceable; Article 39 and Article 41 are read harmoniously with fundamental rights.
Q1. Can daily wages based employees be as regular under the same scheme of their employment?
Q2. What were the issues involved in the Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration case?
Q3. Is it the duty of State to secure the Right to Work?
Q4. Was the judgment in favor of petitioners (workmen)?
Q5. What were the facts of the Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration case?