IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 472 of 2008 1. Gyan Chand Saw, son of Late Kod Narayan Saw, Mining Mate 2. Murat Ram, son of Sri Raj Muni Ram, Clerk 3. Gore Lal Jha, son of late C.L. Jha, Clerk 4. Ratendra Narayan Singh, son of late Shashidhar Pd. Singh, Clerk 5. Ramakant Prasad, son of late Jugal Prasad, Compressor Driver 6. Subhas Ram, son of late Lakshman Ram, Mining Mate 7. Ram Bilas Ram, son of late Bhatu Ram, Mining Mate 8. Karyanand Singh, son of Sri Ram Chandra Singh, Mining Mate 9. Pramod Kumar, son late Kedar Nath Sinha, Clerk 10. Ram Prasad Sharma, son of late Darshan Hazzam, Mining Mate 11. Dilip Kumar Soni, son of Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Guard All are employed and working under BSMDC Ltd. [now the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (JSMDC Ltd.)] at Koderma Mica Unit P.O., P.S. & District Koderma, Jharkhand ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary (earlier Secretarycum Commissioner), Government of Bihar, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar, P.O. & P.S. Sachivalay Area at Patna (Bihar) 2. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary (earlier Secretary cumCommissioner), Government of Jharkhand, Department of Mines & Geology, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (now the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.) through the Manging Director, B.S.M.D.C. (Now Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.), Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi 4. The Mines Agent, B.S.M.D.C. (Now Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.) Koderma Mica Unit, at P.O. & P.S. Koderma, Jharkhand ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants : Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the JSMDC : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. Mr. D.C. Mishra, J.C. to G.A. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Binit Chandra, J.C. to G.A. (Bihar) 15/ Dated: 7 th August, 2015 Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, J.: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5806 of 2002 dated 22nd October, 2008, whereby, prayer of these appellants in the writ petition to 2 the effect that on the ground of parity, the pay scale of these appellants (original petitioners) should be made as per the employees of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the “JSMDC”) has been rejected. These appellants have also challenged the decision taken by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna dated 22nd April, 2000, whereby, representation preferred by the appellants (original petitioners) was rejected. The writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, these appellants (original petitioners) have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal . 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that initially these appellants were working with the M/s Eastern Manganese & Minerals Private Limited, Koderma. The mines operated by the said private company were taken over by the erstwhile State of Bihar from March 1986, thereafter, JSMDC came into existence and, therefore, these appellants (original petitioners) have demanded parity of pay scale with the employees of JSMDC. Initially, a writ petition was preferred by these appellants and ultimately a direction was given to consider the cases of the appellants, in accordance with law and, therefore, a decision was taken by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna and the representation of these appellants (original petitioners) was rejected vide order dated 22nd April, 2000, which was also challenged in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5806 of 2002, preferred by these appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 dated 12th December, 2008 and submitted that direction was given by this Court to enact a policy so that these appellants (original petitioners) may be regularized in the services. The policy has never been drafted nor the same has been implemented. This is one of the reason for quashing and setting aside the order 3 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5806 of 2002 dated 22 nd October, 2008. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 319 of 2002 dated 17th December, 2002 and has submitted that these appellants are employees of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, which has been declared as an employer and, therefore, JSMDC should maintain the parity of the pay scale. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 436 of 2005 dated 10th May, 2006 and has submitted that even the age of superannuation of the appellants is 60 years as per the decision of this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that against the order passed in L.P.A. No. 436 of 2005, a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the Corporation, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by detailed order. On the basis of the aforesaid three decisions, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge that the appellants are employees of JSMDC and parity of pay scale should be maintained by this Corporation and, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5806 of 2002 dated 22nd October, 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5806 of 2002 vide order dated 22 nd October, 2008 for getting parity of pay scale. These appellants (original petitioners) are daily rated workers. They cannot be compared with the regular employees of the JSMDC. Moreover, nothing is brought on record about similarity and performance of the duties. Moreover, never any direction has been given by any Court to the 4 JSMDC to regularize the services of these appellants. The direction was to take a policy decision, which is even as per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is not yet decided. Be that as it may, but, the fact remains that the appellants were daily rated workers and the duties performed by them and the duties performed by the regular employees of JSMDC are not the same. Moreover, such Mica unit has also been closed since 2003. All these aspects have been properly appreciated in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) These appellants are original petitioners, who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 5806 of 2002 and they were seeking parity of the pay scale with the employees of the JSMDC and they are also challenging the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna dated 22nd April, 2000. (ii) It appears that these appellants were working as daily wagers in M/s Eastern Manganese & Minerals Private Limited, Koderma which was acquired by the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1986. Thereafter, said Mica Unit has been closed in the year 2003. No mining operation is going, since then. (iii) It further appears that earlier a direction was given to decide the representation of the appellants by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The decision is taken by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna dated 22nd April, 2000, in which, prayer of these appellants were not accepted by the erstwhile State of Bihar. This decision was also challenged in the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5806 of 2002. It appears that the 5 appellants cannot be compared with the regular employees of JSMDC and, therefore, there cannot be parity of the pay scale. (iv) “Parity” means equality in all the circumstances. These appellants (original petitioners) have to be identically placed still discriminated. We see no reason to hold that the appellants and regular employees of the JSMDC are identically placed. (v) It further appears that the JSMDC is entrusted only to manage the affairs of closed unit falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand and, thus, the appellants cannot raise a grievance to claim parity. (vi) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh, as reported in (2006) 9 SCC 321 that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no application to the persons employed on contract basis or on daily wage basis and it will be governed by the terms and conditions of the service, which may be applicable to them. (vii) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harbans Lal vs. State of H.P., as reported in (1989) 4 SCC 459 that daily rated workers were entitled to minimum wages admissible to such workmen as prescribed. (viii) Pay scale is attached with definite post, whereas, these appellants (original petitioners) are daily rated workers and, therefore, daily wagers cannot be compared with the pay scale which the regular employees are getting in the JSMDC. (ix) Even otherwise also, “equal pay for equal work” principle depends upon nature of duties, nature of job, nature of employment and also dependent upon educational qualification. Moreover unless the 6 appellants are absorbed and declared to be the employees of JSMDC, their pay scale cannot be compared with the regular employees of JSMDC. The claim of regularization of these appellants is still in belligerent stage, which is yet to be established by these appellants. There is no prayer by these appellants for their absorption or regularization into the services of JSMDC. (x) The peculiar facts, as stated hereinabove that there cannot be parity of the pay scale with the regular employees of JSMDC, make the present case different from the facts of the decision as cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and, hence, the benefit of those decisions cannot be extended to these appellants. (xi) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as reported in (2006) 6 SCC 281 paragraph 16 thereof. As stated hereinabove that hundred possibilities cannot be equated with one truth. These appellants may have very good case for their regularization or for their absorption on the basis of several decisions as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, but, the fact remains that these appellants are yet to be regularized or absorbed as regular employees of JSMDC and, therefore, their absorption or regularization issue is in a belligerent stage and, hence, there cannot be parity of the pay scale with the regular employees of JSMDC. (xii) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also relied upon some orders passed by the respondentCorporation which are at Annexure5 and 5/1, both dated 30th May, 2009. It appears that none of these orders is helpful to these appellants (original petitioners) mainly for the reason that there cannot be equality in illegality. Those who are 7 not regular employees, their pay scale cannot be compared with the regular employees of JSMDC. (xiii) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as reported in (2003) 5 SCC 448. The facts stated hereinabove are glaringly different from the facts of several decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants especially that (a) These appellants (original petitioners) were daily wager employees of M/s Eastern Manganese and Minerals Private Limited. (b) These appellants (original petitioners) are yet seeking their regularization or absorption. (c) These appellants (original petitioners) were even not regularized or absorbed into the services of erstwhile Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation. (d) These appellants (original petitioners) have not yet been regularized or absorbed into the services of JSMDC. (e) As on today, there may be very tallest claim of the appellants to be regularized or absorbed, but, the fact remains that this very tall claim which can also be termed as that their claim is in belligerent stage and, therefore, as on today, they are not regularized or absorbed. Hence, they cannot claim parity of the pay scale with the regular employees of JSMDC. (xiv) All these aspects have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5806 of 2002 vide order dated 22nd October, 2008 especially in paragraph nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. 8 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. There being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. (D.N. Patel, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Ajay/