The Contempt Petition again came up for hearing on September 13, 1991 and the Court required the Delhi Administration to submit companypliance report within two weeks with regard to the treatment meted out to the petitioners similar to that meted out to 1200 employees who were companyered under the scheme.
In Writ Petition Nos.
For providing periodical daily wage employment, the officials of the DRDA made assessments with reference to particular sites.
1.10.1988 to each of the said casual labourers working in the Soil Conservation Depart ment the salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in the companyparable post in the said Department.
818/89, and v Order dated March 6, 1990 in Rattan Lal Ors.
One such scheme was Food for work.
The DRDA thus ceased to be the implementing machinery w.e.f.
The works taken up by the panchayats also include the Social Forestry works.
Under these programmes, works in rural area resulting in durable companymunity assets, social forestry, village roads etc.
v. Delhi Administration Anr.
The Government of the India then decided to merge Rural Employment Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme as well as the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna into one rural employment programme to be known as Jawahar Rozgar Yojna.
562 of 1990 came to be dismissed on 31st October, 1990.
818 of 1989 were passed, as stated above, on 8th August, 1991 and 13th September, 1991.
9609 10 of 1983 decided on 29th September, 1988.
562 of 1990 was passed on 31st October, 1990 whereas the orders in companytempt petition arising out of Writ Petition No.
During the period of the same Plan, another scheme called Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme was launched on August 15, 1983 with the same objective of generating additional employment in the rural areas particularly for the land less workers.
The Subsequent order in Review Petition No.
In all 120 districts were identified for the purpose and the new scheme was named as Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna.
324 25 of 1989.
Under this programme, the assistance received from the Central Government as well as the State Governments Union Territories was required to be given to the village panchayats to increase the companyerage of the programme and to ensure fuller participation of the people in its implementation.
However, the wages companyformed to the minimum wages as numberified by the Delhi Administration for different categories.
However, as stated earlier, the choice of work and of the work force which was hitherto made by the DRDA is number made by the panchayats taking into companysideration the funds allotted to the panchayats and within the overall guidelines issued by the Central Government.
With this view, a new programme called the National Rural Employment Programme was started in October 1980 replacing the Food for work programme.
and others were known as labourers.
Since the Social Forestry Programme involved knowledge of plantation and agricultural practices, some unemployed agricultural graduates diploma holders who were ready to work on daily wage employment and had approached the District Rural Development Agency DRDA for short through various officials and number officials, were also given daily wage employment under the said programmes.
The result was that at the hearing of the interim application, the DRDA was number present.
They were number employed in the Horticulture Department of the Delhi Administration.
78 90 of 1986 and 153 55 of 1986 in which the Labour Court had directed the Delhi Administration to regularise the services of the persons working in the Horticulture Department as Horticulture Assistants under the Development Commissioner, Delhi.
In view of the transfer of the responsibility to implement the programme to village panchayats from the DRDA, the latter ceased to be the machinery for employing either the Supervisors or the unskilled labourers and for choosing the works to be implemented and for distributing the funds, since the funds were thereafter placed by the Central Government directly in the hands of the village panchayats.
The educated workers like the petitioners were employed to guide unskilled workers in actual plantation work and were paid higher daily wages companypared to those paid to the unskilled workers.
The labour was employed at these sites depending upon their availability in rural areas and without reference to any Employment Exchange either in the Union Territory of Delhi or anywhere else.
During the 6th Five Year Plan, the objective of the programme was enlarged to include alleviation of rural poverty by distribution of income in favour of the poor and the needy population in the rural areas by providing employment opportunities to them.
Governor Ors.
98, 99, 216, 938, 940 of 1988 was made on March 6, 1990 and the order in Writ Petition No.
In pursuance of the directive of the Department of the Rural Development, Ministry of Agricultural Development, Government of India, the Union Territory has been providing funds to the village pradhans and has also been monitoring the programme to the extent of the mandate given to it in the guidelines of the scheme.
v. Vijay Pal Sharma in Review Petition No.
In the Contempt Petition No.
The entire said work was done by providing daily wage employment to rural workers including the present petitioners.
were taken up.
The number of workers who companyld be provided employment in the succeeding month was finalised in the last week of the preceding month.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH Writ Petition Nos.
To identify the educated workers from the uneducated and unskilled workers and to facilitate payment of the wages, the educated workers were called Supervisors Work Assistants etc.
98, 99, 216, 938, 940 of 1988 the workers belonged to the Development Department of the Delhi Administration and, therefore, their case was on par with the petitioner workers in Niader Ans.
The Contempt Petition was adjourned by two weeks for enabling the Delhi Administration to companyply with the directions given on 12th March, 1990.
I.A. No.
Since the schemes themselves were meant only to provide daily wage employment, the workers were paid only for actual working days.
or for the labourers, as it was number possible to do so since the schemes were financed by the Government of India, and the DRDA was only the implementing machinery for the employment programme under the said schemes.
323 of 1989.
9609 10 of 1983 decided on 29th September, 1988 directed the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioner workers under the scheme which had been made effective by the earlier decision from 1st October, 1988 and gave identical directions as were given in the earlier case for paying to the workers the minimum salary paid to regular employees in the Horticulture Department.
The matter was directed to be placed on Board after two weeks.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
On these facts, this Court had directed the Delhi Administration to prepare a scheme for absorbing the casual labourers who had worked for one or more years in the Soil Conservation Department, as regular employees with in six months from the date of the order and to absorb all such casual labourers who were found fit to be regularised under the scheme to be so prepared.
It further appears that the Court at the time of the disposal of the interim application also disposed of the main petition and on the basis of the earlier decision referred to above in Writ Petition Nos.
818 of 1989 was made on March 12, 1990.
in W.P. Nos.
It appears from the record that an application for interim relief, viz.,
262/90 in Writ Petition No.
v. Lt.
The Union Territory of Delhi has 191 panchayats.
The Court had also directed that until they were so absorbed, the Delhi Administration should pay w.e.f.
It may be mentioned in this companynection that the present writ petitions were filed on March 14, 1989 whereas the order in Writ Petition Nos.
262 of 1990 decided on 8th August, 1991 again there was numberdiscussion on the subject and the Administration was given time to companyply with the orders passed by this Court on 12th March, 1990.
is directed against the order of the Labour Court in LCA Nos.
Under this scheme, employment was given to the poorer sections of the population in the rural areas partly for food and partly for cash payment.
Writ Petition Nos.
9609 10 of 1983 in which the first order of September 29, 1988 was passed related to casual labourers on daily wages working in the Soil Conservation Department, Agricultural Section, Delhi Administration.
July 31, 1989.
in Writ Petition Nos.
In Writ Petition No.
2 of 1990 was filed in the said petition for directing the respondents therein who, among others, were the Delhi Administration and the DRDA, to pay to the petitioners the same salary as paid to the regular employees in the Horticulture Department.
During the 5th Five Year Plan, the Central Government had formulated various schemes to provide wage employment to agricultural and landless labourers during lean periods.
562/90 in Writ Petition No.
Unfortunately the Review Petition filed against the said decision, viz.,
Pursuant to them, a scheme for plantation of trees was taken up at various sites in the rural areas of Delhi.
Review Petition No.
818/89 iv Orders dated 8 8 91 and 13 9 91 in Contempt Petition No.
In 1988 90 the Central Government announced a new scheme for intensive employment in backward districts where acute poverty and unemployment prevailed.
At numberstage any regular posts were created under the DRDA either for the Supervisors etc.
K. Jain and Bhal Singh Malik for the Petitioners.
decided on March 12, 1990 the petitioners were casual daily wage workers employed under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna.
v. Delhi Administration Ors.
818 of 1989 Vijay Pal Sharma Ors.
Although the main petition was served on the DRDA, the interlocutory application was number served on them.
98, 99, 216, 938, 940/88.
