The Karnataka High Court has disposed of a PIL, seeking medical and other benefits for women workers employed under the ‘Bisi Oota Mid-day Meal Scheme’ in the state of Karnataka.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty disposed of the writ petition, while noting that provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 apply in case of scheduled employment.
Besides, benefits available under the scheme, including medical aid and insurance, have also been extended to the women by the state government, observed the Bench.
The order was passed on a petition filed by Nowhera Shaik, who claims to be a social worker.
The PIL said in light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the mid-day meal scheme was made compulsory in all the States of India. The State of Karnataka has implemented the mid-day meal scheme by formulating ‘Bisi Oota Mid-day Meal Scheme’.
It is the case of the petitioner that under the aforesaid scheme, women workers are employed on paltry amount of Rs 1,000 per month. It has been averred in the petition that the women workers employed under the scheme belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward classes category.
It has been stated that the aforesaid women workers who have been employed under the scheme for preparation of meals for school children, have been denied the benefit of minimum wages. It is also averred that the aforesaid women workers employed under the scheme proceeded on a strike to fulfill their demands with regard to payment of minimum wages and other facilities.
It is also pleaded that the fundamental rights of the said women workers under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been infringed. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this plea, seeking a direction to the respondents to provide minimum wages to the women workers employed under the scheme.
The petitioner, in addition, sought direction to the respondents to provide other benefits like Maternity Leave and other Leaves, including medical and insurance benefits to the women workers employed under the scheme.
The Division Bench observed that in ‘Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India & Others’ (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No 196/2001), the Supreme Court directed that freshly cooked meals be provided to children in all the Government schools across the country. In compliance with the aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Karnataka has framed the aforesaid scheme.
Under the scheme, Cooks were to be recruited for the purposes of preparing the meals and for serving the same to the school children. The scheme was to be operated within the premises of the schools falling under the category of Government-run schools and Government-aided schools. The scheme envisaged the constitution of Selection Committee for selection of Cooks.
The scheme further envisaged that the recruitment of such Cooks under the scheme was to be made after invitation of applications and wide publicity was required to be given for the same. The details of eligibility, the terms of honorarium etc. were also provided therein. The working hours for such Cooks enrolled under the scheme is maximum four hours in a day. The Cooks were to be employed on contract basis.
Under the aforesaid scheme, Cooks were engaged by the Government of Karnataka on contract basis and initially, an honorarium of Rs 1,000 per month was paid to them. However, subsequently in 2014-2015, the honorarium payable to the Head Cooks and Cooks was enhanced to Rs 1,700 and Rs 1,600 per month, respectively. The aforesaid honorarium payable to Head Cooks and Cooks under the scheme was further enhanced to Rs 2,000 and Rs 1,900 per month, respectively. Thereafter in 2017, the honorarium payable to Head Cooks and Cooks under the scheme was enhanced to Rs 2,200 to 2,100 per month, respectively.
In view of the demands made by the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the scheme, in 2018, the honorarium was further enhanced to Rs 2,700 and Rs 2,600 per month, respectively.
The Government has also undertaken the measures of providing insurance and compensation. In case of untimely death or injury, compensation to the extent of Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 75,000 respectively is payable.
The provision for payment of Rs 30,000 has also been made in case any burn injuries are sustained by any person employed under the scheme. It is noted by the Bench that the State Government, by an order dated May 18, 2015, has made a provision for insurance under the ‘Rastriya Bhima Yojane’. Any person employed under the scheme can avail of the benefit of insurance by depositing Rs 12 per annum as subscription and the Cooks employed under the scheme are entitled for payment of Rs 2,00,000 in case of death and Rs 1,00,000 in case of injury.
So far as the claim of the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the Scheme for grant of minimum wages is concerned, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applies in case of “scheduled employment”. The provisions of the Act apply to the employment which have been mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Act. The scheme is not one of the employments mentioned in the Schedule and therefore, the provisions of the Act do not apply to Head Cooks and Cooks who have been employed on contract basis for a limited duration of four hours in a day.
Under the provisions of the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 the number of hours to constitute a normal working day in case of an adult is 9 hours. The Head Cooks and Cooks also failed to fulfill this criteria mentioned under the Rules. The claim of minimum wages by the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the scheme is not covered under the provisions of Act. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondents to provide minimum wages to the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the scheme.
“Medical benefits and insurance benefits have already been extended to the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the scheme. Needless to state that the benefits available to Head Cooks and Cooks under the scheme shall be extended to them by the State Government. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of,” the order read.