# Amarjeet Yadav v. State of U.P & Ors - **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 366 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-03-07 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 848 of 2014 - **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amarjeet-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48332 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Service Law - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Part I, Sections 2(g) & 27 - Employment as the part-time sweeper in government hospital -Applicability of the Act of 1948 - Scheduled employment, described - Held, since sweeping as an employment finds mention under the list of scheduled employment, therefore, the employment as a sweeper falls under the purview of Scheduled Employment - Direction issued to pay minimum wages to the part-time sweepers. (Para 9 and 13) B. Service law - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Ss. 2(e)(ii) and 26 - Government hospital, whether it is exempted from the application of the Act - No notification issued u/s 26 exempting government hospital from the application of the Act - Effect - Term 'employer' defined - Held, the respondents, who have engaged the petitioner in a scheduled employment for which minimum wages are fixed, are 'employer' for all purposes under the Act of 1948. (Para 11 and 12) Writ petition allowed. (E-1) ## Text 366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES decision by the Court as the counsel and the Court may be misled. 12. Let notice be issued to the Hind Publishing House, 1, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad- 211001 to show cause as to what action should be taken against it for wrong publication of the Rules as on date when the book was published. 13. The appeal is allowed.However, to deal with the notice issued, the matter shall be listed in Court on May 4, 2022. (J.J. Munir, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.) Allahabad 09.03.2022 Manish Himwan/P.Sri. Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No ---------- (2022)04ILR A366 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.03.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J. Writ A No. 848 of 2014 Amarjeet Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: B.N. Sirswal, Harish Chandra Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Service Law - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Part I, Sections 2(g) & 27 - Employment as the part-time sweeper in government hospital -Applicability of the Act of 1948 - Scheduled employment, described - Held, since sweeping as an employment finds mention under the list of scheduled employment, therefore, the employment as a sweeper falls under the purview of Scheduled Employment - Direction issued to pay minimum wages to the part-time sweepers. (Para 9 and 13) B. Service law - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Ss. 2(e)(ii) and 26 - Government hospital, whether it is exempted from the application of the Act - No notification issued u/s 26 exempting government hospital from the application of the Act - Effect - Term 'employer' defined - Held, the respondents, who have engaged the petitioner in a scheduled employment for which minimum wages are fixed, are 'employer' for all purposes under the Act of 1948. (Para 11 and 12) Writ petition allowed. (E-1) (Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.) 1. Petitioner claims to be working on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar since 2012 as a part-time sweeper on payment of Rs.500/- per month. Since 2012 till the date the said payment being made to the petitioner is not revised, hence, petitioner has approached this court. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that at this stage he is not pressing his prayer with regard to regularization of services as the case of petitioner is not yet covered under any regularization rules. Further, petitioner is also not entitled for minimum of pay scale of Sweeper-cumChowkidar as petitioner is working as a part time sweeper. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that long hours of work is being taken from the petitioner in the garb of part-time work and the amount being paid to the petitioner is meager. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance upon the provisions of the 4 All. Amarjeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 367 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and submits that petitioner is also entitled for payment of the minimum wages. 4. Learned Standing Counsel Submits that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1948") are not applicable to the government hospital and also sweeping as an employment does not find any mention in the notification of the Scheduled Employment issued under the Act of 1948 by the Labour Department, State of U.P. 5. Submission of learned Standing Counsel does not hold any ground. The Part-I of The Schedule under the Act of 1948 contains a list of scheduled employments. 6. The State Government can only add to this list, it cannot remove any entry from the Part-I of the scheduled employment as is clear from a plain reading of Section 27 of the Act of 1948, which reads as follows:- "Section 27: Power of State Government to add to Schedule. -The appropriate Government, after giving by notification in the Official Gazette not less than three months notice of its intention so to do, may, by like notification, add to either Part of the Schedule any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed under this Act, and thereupon the Schedule shall in its application to the State be deemed to be amended accordingly." 7. Section 27, therefore obligates the State Government to abide by the Scheduled list as given in the Act of 1948 in addition to the Scheduled Employments, which it adds to the same. 8. Furthermore, Section 2(g) of the Act of 1948 defines Scheduled Employment as:- Scheduled employment" means an employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment;" Additionally, the Part I of The Schedule of the Act of 1948 was amended by S.O. 1573(E), dated 3rd November, 2005 (w.e.f. 7-11-2005) to add "Employment of Sweeping and Cleaning excluding activities prohibited under the Employment of Manual Scavangers and Costruction of Dry Latrines ( Prohibition) Act, 1993." 9. From the above it becomes abundantly clear that since sweeping as an employment finds mention under the list of scheduled employment, therefore, the employment of the petitioner engaged by respondent no.3 as a sweeper falls under the purview of Scheduled Employment. 10. Next issue is whether the respondents as an employer are exempted from the application of the Act of 1948. Section 2(e) when read with Section 26 of the Act of 1948 makes it clear that unless there is an express exemption by the appropriate Government, employers of the scheduled employment will always be under the purview of this Act. Section 2(e) (ii) reads:- "(e) "employer" means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled 368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes, except in subsection (3) of section 26,- . (ii) in any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed, the head of the department; "".." 11. Thus it is safe to say that the respondents, who have engaged the petitioner in a scheduled employment for which minimum wages are fixed, are "employer" for all purposes under the Act of 1948. "Section 26: Exemptions and exceptions:- (1) The appropriate Government may, subject to such conditions, if any, as it may think fit to impose, direct that the provisions of this Act shall not apply in relation to the wages payable to disabled employees. """""." 12. The Learned Standing Counsel has failed to place on record any notification issued under Section 26 of the Act of 1948 exempting the respondent department from the application of the Act of 1948. In view thereof, petitioner is entitled for the minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 13. Therefore, respondent No. 3 Regional Ayurvedic/Unani Officer, Bahraich is directed to pay minimum wages to the petitioner as notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with regard to part-time sweepers within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. 14. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. ---------- (2022)04ILR A368 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 1984 of 2022 Alok Shukla & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri M.N. Singh, Sri Nisheeth Yadav A. Service Law - Post of Mining Officer - Qualification - Prescription of qualification and other conditions of service - Policy matter - Judicial review - Scope of interference - Possession of higher qualification - Permissibility - Held, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the St. - The policy decision has to be taken by the St. Government for changing the academic qualification for the post of Mining Officer as well as Mining Inspector, which cannot be judicially reviewed by this Court - High Court issued direction for making representation and taking decision on it. (Para 15, 17 and 23) Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)