New Delhi (ILNS): The Jharkhand High Court has said that equal pay in lieu of equal work is not a fundamental right, but looking at the Directive Principles of State Policy it appears to be a fundamental right. For this reason, the demand for equal pay in lieu of equal work cannot be considered unnecessary.
The court of Justice Dr S N Pathak, with this remark, executed a petition upholding the order of the labour court regularizing the service of a casual typist of FCI, giving him all the arrears of salary and facilities.
The court has said in its order that it is perfectly right to give equal pay to FCI employee Anil Kumar, who has been working since 1982. In this case, the corporation also had the post of typist and regular reinstatement was done after 1982. But Anil Kumar was kept casual. In such a situation, it is perfectly justifiable to give them the same salary as other typists and they cannot be denied this benefit.
The court also said in its judgment that the order of the Labour Court is based on the documents and it is not proper to interfere with the High Court in the decisions until a major error is noticed in the documents or the Labor Court goes beyond its jurisdiction. In this case also, the Labour Court has given this decision after looking at all the relevant documents and rules. Now it does not require any kind of intervention. Hence the petition of the Food Corporation of India is dismissed and the order of the Labour Court is upheld.
Anil Kumar, working in the Food Corporation of India, had filed a petition in the Labour Court. It stated that he had been working as a casual worker since 1982. He was never given an appointment letter. He was working in the corporation as a Hindi typist. His service was terminated in the year 1984. He went to the Labour Court against this. In the year 1990, the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement. After this, he was retained as a casual employee.
Read Aslo: International Criminal Court: Role and Work
In the year 1995, FCI started the recruitment process. An application was also sought from internal personnel for this, but Anil Kumar went to the Labour Court against this appointment process. He has been working for a long time as a typist. When the posts are vacant, their service should be regularized. After hearing the matter, the Labour Court directed to regularize the service of the applicant and to pay the same salary and other facilities as a permanent employee.
The FCI filed a petition in the High Court against this order of the Labor Court. After a long hearing in the High Court, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and upheld the order of the Labour Court and ordained the typist to be considered regular from the year 1991 and given salary and other facilities.
Typist Anil Kumar retired in the year 2018 while the case was pending in the High Court. After the direction of the court, now they will get the same salary and other facilities as regular typists from the year 1991 itself.