Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2021

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Sangeeta Devdas Salvi and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.98222 OF 2020

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Ujwala Sampatrao Hajare and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.863 OF 2021

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

PAGE NO. 1 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

V/s.

Rupa Vijaybahadur Yadav and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1154 OF 2021

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Rasika Ganpat Aagre and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2021

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Naji Ganpat Jogale and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1599 OF 2021

PAGE NO. 2 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Surekha Suresh Dhakorkar and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1158 OF 2021

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Manju Tamradhwaj Kamble and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.14081 OF 2022

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Aarti Sanjay Shastri and others ...Respondents

PAGE NO. 3 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.776 OF 2023

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Vidya R. Bhosale and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.789 OF 2023

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

V/s.

Seema Santosh Phapal and others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.5921 OF 2023

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

PAGE NO. 4 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

V/s.

Darshana Anand Gamare and others ...Respondents

________________

Mr. A. S. Peerzada with Mr. Santosh Mali for MCGM, Petitioner in

WP/1156/2021.

Mr. Santosh Mali for MCGM, Petitioners in other Petitions.

Mr. P.V. Devdas with Ms. Vidula S. Patil and Ms. Manasi Kanitkar for the

Respondents.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

RESERVED ON: 6 AUGUST 2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 13 AUGUST 2026

Judgment:

SHE IS CALLED A ‘VOLUNTEER’. THE STATE DEPENDS ON HER

LIKE A WORKER.

1) The above quote in the Article

1

highlights the plight of

Community Health Volunteers engaged by the country’s largest civic

governing body, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, who are

denied digni�ed wages. Community Health Volunteers act as a vital

grassroot link between local communities and public health systems.

They support maternal-child health, assist in disease and vector control,

1

‘Volunteers in Indian Labour Laws: How the State uses a word to deny women their rights’ by Kabir

Jain, published in ‘Change in Content’ on 24 April 2026

PAGE NO. 5 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

and help execute national and municipal health programs across

Mumbai's wards. They are paid a �xed honorarium by the Municipal

Corporation, and their �ght is for payment of minimum wages

guaranteed under the Minium Wages Act, 1948.

2) These Petitions are �led by the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai challenging the common judgment and order dated 7

September 2020 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act,

1948 and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai City allowing

the Applications preferred by the Respondents and their Unions, and

upholding the claims of Community Health Volunteers (CHVs) for

minimum wages. The Authority has directed the Municipal Corporation

to pay CHVs the difference in the minimum wages plus special allowance

and the honorarium already paid to them. The amounts payable in

respect of the claims raised in each of the applications are quanti�ed by

the Authority with direction to the Municipal Corporation to pay the

same to the CHVs.

3) Petitioner is a Municipal Corporation established under the

provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. It provides

civic amenities to the residents of Mumbai city. One of the mandatory

duties which the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation is required to ful�ll is

provision of health related services within its territorial jurisdiction. In

the year 1988, the Municipal Corporation implemented ‘India Population

Project V’ (Project) with the �nancial assistance of the World Bank. The

Project envisaged development and expansion of health family welfare

centers. It was proposed to establish 176 centers named as ‘Health Posts’

PAGE NO. 6 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

including 56 Family Welfare Centers in Mumbai. The objective of the

project was to provide health services to slum dwellers in Mumbai such

as family planning, maternal and child healthcare, vaccination, ante-

natal and post-natal services and creating awareness in slum areas and

to prevent spread of diseases like plague, dengue and create awareness in

avoiding spread of such diseases. The Project was also aimed at

providing preventive and curative health services to the community at

large. With the passage of time, several other services and schemes were

introduced by the Municipal Corporation such as control of polio

through Pulse Polio, AIDS control programme, leprosy eradication,

tuberculosis control, malaria eradication, promotion of small family by

adopting family planning measures etc. In order to execute the Project,

the Municipal Corporation decided to take assistance of volunteers to

work as part-time woman community health workers.

4) The assistance received through World Bank for

implementation of the Project was discontinued from 31 March 1996.

However, the assurance was apparently given by the Mu nicipal

Corporation to the World Bank that the services established under the

India Population Project V will be continued even without the �nancial

assistance from the World Bank. Accordingly, after 1996, the Municipal

Corporation has made a provision for expenditure in its own budget for

operation of the Health Posts created under the project. Each Health

Post used to be apparently manned by one full-time Medical Of�cer, one

Public Healthcare Nurse, 3 to 5 Auxiliary Nurses, 3 to 5 Multipurpose

Workers and about 25 Part-time Woman Health Workers and a Center

PAGE NO. 7 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

Attendant. To cover the entire territory area and population in Mumbai,

176 Health Posts were established.

5) For implementing various schemes under the Project and for

providing health care services amongst communities especially the slum

areas, the Municipal Corporation started hiring local women in the

community. They were hired as part-time CHVs. The CHVs so engaged

by the Municipal Corporation are paid �xed honorarium for number of

hours of work performed by them. It appears that they were engaged for

different hours every day. Some worked for 3 hours a day, some worked

for 4 hours a day and it is claimed by Respondents in the present case

that they have worked for 5 hours every day.

6) Mahapalika Aarogya-Seva Karmachari Sanghatana (Union)

took up the cause of CHVs and raised a demand for their absorption as

regular employees of the Municipal Corporation. At the instance of the

Union, Reference (IT) No.39 of 2000 was referred to Industrial Tribunal,

Mumbai. The Reference was resisted by the Municipal Corporation,

questioning the status of CHVs as ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) for maintainability of the

Reference. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal framed preliminary issue

about status of CHVs within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. By

Part-I Award dated 2 March 2002, the Industrial Tribunal held that

Voluntary Women Health Workers/Community Health Workers were

‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Writ Petition

No. 4027 of 2002 was �led in this Court challenging the Part-I Award,

which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge Part-I Award. Final Award

PAGE NO. 8 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

in Reference (IT) No. 39 of 2000 was made on 13 January 2004 by the

Industrial Tribunal rejecting the demand for absorption in municipal

service. However, the Municipal Corporation was directed to increase the

honorarium by Rs.150/- per month so that CHVs were also entitled for

remuneration of Rs.900/- per month w.e.f. 13 January 2004. The

Municipal Corporation was also directed to ensure uniformity in working

hours of CHVs.

7) The Union challenged the �nal Award dated 13 January 2004

by �ling Writ Petition No.7958 of 2005, challenging rejection of demand

Nos.1 and 3 to 6, relating to absorption etc. As against this, Municipal

Corporation �led Writ Petition No.8947 of 2004, challenging Part-I

Award upholding the status of CHVs as workman. This Court took up the

cross Petitions for hearing with various other petitions relating to CHVs.

By a common judgment and order dated 4 January 2017, this Court has

dismissed Writ Petition No.7958 of 2005 �led by the Union as well as

Writ Petition No.8947 of 2004 �led by the Municipal Corporation. The

Municipal Corporation has �led Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9660 of

2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the judgment and

order passed by this Court on 4 January 2017. By Order dated 13 April

2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed operation of the impugned

judgment. The leave has been granted in the SLP by order dated 28

August 2018. It is reported that the Appeal is still pending before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8) In the above background, Application Nos. 1 to 12 of 2016

was �led by CHVs and their Union under Section 20(2) of the Minimum

PAGE NO. 9 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

Wages Act, 1948 before the Authority appointed under the Act seeking

payment of difference of wages due according to minimum rates of

wages �xed by Government Noti�cation dated 24 February 2015 and the

wages actually paid. Different amounts were quanti�ed in each of the

Applications and recovery thereof was sought from the Municipal

Corporation.

9) The Applications were resisted by the Municipal

Corporation by �ling Written Statements. On behalf of the CHVs, their

advocate was examined as a witness. On behalf of the Municipal

Corporation, Dr. Pratibha Dilip Jadhav was examined as its witness. Shri.

Sunil Tulsiram Jangale, Divisional Labour and Welfare Of�cer in the

Municipal Corporation was also examined as a witness. After considering

the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Authority has passed

common judgment and order dated 7 September 2020, allowi ng

Application No. 1 to 12 of 2016 and has upheld the entitlement of CHVs

to receive minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly,

the Municipal Corporation is directed to pay the quanti�ed amounts of

difference between minimum wages and the wages actually paid to

CHVs. Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 7 September 2020 and has �led the present petitions.

10) Mr. Peerzada, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner-Municipal Corporation submits that the Authority has grossly

erred in allowing the applications preferred by the CHVs. He submits that

CHVs are not employed by the Municipal Corporation in any manner.

That since there is no employer-employee relationship, there is no

PAGE NO. 10 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

question of Municipal Corporation paying minimum wages to them. That

CHVs do not �t into de�nition of the term ‘employee’ under Section 2(i)

of the Minimum Wages Act. That in any case, the issue of status of CHVs

is already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the Award

has already been stayed during pendency of the civil appeal. That

therefore the Authority could not have adjudicated the issue of status

once again when the same is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. He therefore submits that CHVs are volunteers who are engaged

for performing the task under a speci�c project. That no recruitment

process is followed for their initial engagements. That their services are

hired on need basis. That since wages are not paid to CHVs, there is no

question of determining their entitlements under the Minimum Wages

Act. That the applications were grossly barred by limitation. That issues

were not properly framed by the learned Authority. That the Authority

has failed to appreciate and consider various Awards passed by the

Industrial Tribunal including Reference (IT) No. 5 of 2000 as well as order

of this Court dated 4 January 2017 wherein entitlement of CHVs is

upheld only to the extent of payment of honorarium. That their prayer

for absorption in municipal service is already rejected. That the same

prayers were sought to be introduced in an indirect manner after being

unsuccessful in securing reliefs in Reference (IT) No. 5 of 2000, as well as

before this Court.

11) Mr. Peerzada further submits that the impugned order of the

learned Authority is in the teeth of judgment of this Court dated 4

January 2017. That de�nition of the term ‘workman’ under Section 2(s)

of the ID Act is more or less similar to the term ‘employee’ under Section

PAGE NO. 11 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

2(i) of the Minium Wages Act. That in the present case, none of the CHVs

has stepped into the witness box and the evidence is adduced by an

advocate. That Applications could not have been allowed by taking into

consideration evidence of an advocate. That CHVs are already paid wages

almost equivalent to minimum wages. That currently they are receiving

honorarium of Rs.14,000/- per month for rendering services for only 5

hours in a day. That the scheme itself is such that the volunteers are

never treated as part of the establishment of the Municipal Corporation.

That since their prayer for absorption has been rejected, the same cannot

be sought to be introduced in the form of payment under the Minimum

Wages Act. In the above broad circumstances, Mr. Peerzada prays for

setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Authority.

12) Mr. Devdas, the learned counsel for the Respondents

opposes the Petition. He submits that absorption in service is a concept

different than payment of minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages

Act and that therefore, mere rejection of Reference for absorption cannot

be a ground for presuming that the Respondents will not get the relief of

payment of digni�ed wages. That services of CHVs are being exploited

by payment of meager honorarium. That the Noti�cation for payment of

minimum wages was issued on 24 February 2015 and therefore, CHVs

�led an application before the learned Authority. That the issue of

payment of minimum wages was not involved in Reference (IT) No. 39 of

2000. That in respect of several other CHVs , orders have been passed for

payment of minimum wages to them. That except CHVs, all other

temporary workers hired by the Municipal Corporation received

PAGE NO. 12 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

minimum wages. That services of CHVs are being exploited by the

Municipal Corporation. He therefore prays for dismissal of the Petitions.

13) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

14) The issue involved in the present Petition is about

entitlement to receive minimum wages by the CHVs as per the

Noti�cations issued from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act.

Respondents are CHVs whose services are volunteered on part-time basis

by the Municipal Corporation for implementation of various health

related programmes and schemes. As observed above, India Population

Project V was implemented by the Municipal Corporation in the year

1988, under which about 176 ‘Health Posts’ were created as Urban Health

Centers throughout the territory of Mumbai City with the �nancial

assistance of the World Bank. The Project was meant to supplement the

health services and family welfare programmes of the Municipal

Corporation. Each Health Post was to be manned by one Medical Of�cer,

one Public Health Nurse, 3 to 5 Auxiliary Nurses and other paramedical

staff alongwith women volunteers on a part-time basis. It appears that

the number of CHVs hired by the Municipal Corporation throughput the

city of Mumbai is substantially high. In the order dated 4 January 2017,

this Court has recorded the number of CHVs as 3400. Mr. Peerzada has

submitted that as of now there are about 3000 CHVs utilised by the

Petitioner-Municipal Corporation to serve as a link between Health Posts

and the community served by such Health Posts. As observed above, the

CHVs do not perform full-time work and are engaged on part-time basis.

PAGE NO. 13 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

Their duty hours are varied. In some cases, they used to work for 3 hours

a day. Mr. Devdas has submitted that the CHVs who are currently

engaged, perform duties for 5 hours a day.

15) The CHVs so hired by the Municipal Corporation �rst made

an attempt for their absorption in the municipal service through

Reference (IT) No.39 of 2000. The Reference was for adjudication of

following demands:

१) eta SwnW P156o fto2e0StdW(CHVS) oWgW wWrWund0 poW e0t0 Io0 dWo d1ToWH oWt0.

२) eta SwnW P156o fto2e0StdW(CHVS) oW2gW G1 wW Cro0 NOUU/- �ेतन दे�यात या�े �

�यानंतर ��येक ��" �पये २५०/- देऊन मनपातील �कमान �ेतना�या ५०% �ेतन दे�यात या�े.

३) eta YwुL.0iBo P156o d a/W1B(MPW) � सम��यक(Co-Ordinator) चे पदनाम बदलून

eWta)Sgd P156o Sg1B9d(Public Health Inspector) कर�यात या�े � �यांना क�न� अ�े�क

(J.O.) �या �ेतन�ेणीबरोबर आण�यात या�े.

४) ewWzod rh1/Wh1dW t FWfHStd(A.N.M.S.) t SwnW dWoa90lB(FFW) चे पदनाम बदलून

�युSg31 w0:, m‘wu)’1 d1ToWH oWt0 t RoW2gW voुSg31 w0:, m‘wu)’1poW t0Hg 704BY15Y1

आण�यात या�े.

५) eWta)Sgd P156o rh1/Wh1dW(PHNS) oW2gW wWrWund0 poW C64WnoWHBn eWta)Sgd P156o

प�रचा�रकाला लागू असलेली �ेतन�ेणी दे�यात या�ी.

६) d54RoWwB cW)KB e2f,0/0 dW [W1HBo n5de2]oW Fd:r- O CBn d a/WDoW2gW G0ToWH o0A

नये.

७) t1Bn d a/WDoW2/B dW W/B t0F eWH HWe d1ToWH oWtB.

16) In the Reference, the Municipal Corporation questioned

their status, contending that they do not answer the description of the

term ‘workman’ appearing under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The objection

of the Municipal Corporation was repelled by the Industrial Tribunal by

Part-I Award dated 2 March 2002. After upholding the status of CHVs as

‘workman’, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to determine remaining

issues and by �nal Award dated 13 January 2004, it has rejected demand

Nos. 1, 3 to 6 as enumerated above. Thus, the demand for absorption in

the municipal service is rejected. Similarly, demands No.3 to 6, which

PAGE NO. 14 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

were not really concerning CHVs were also rejected. Demand No.2 was

partly allowed by directing increase in the honorarium by Rs.150/- per

month. Demand No.7 was also partly allowed by directing uniformity in

working hours. The challenge to the Award by the Union of CHVs has

been rejected by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4 January

2017. The cross challenge raised by the Municipal Corpor ation

questioning status of CHVs as ‘workman’ has also been rejected by this

Court. Now, the Appeals are pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, in

which the impugned judgment has been stayed.

17) In the present case, however, this Court is not concerned

with the issue of absorption of CHVs in the municipal service. In that

sense, pendency of appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not

ipso facto come in the way of this Court deciding the issue of payment of

minimum wages to the CHVs. Mr. Peerzada has however submitted that

there are overlapping issues in the Reference and in the Application for

minimum wages. According to him, the issue of status of CHVs which is

pending before the Apex Court has a material bearing on right of CHVs to

receive minimum wages. He submits that the Municipal Corporation has

challenged the declaration of status of CHVs as ‘workman’ by the

Industrial Tribunal and by this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court and

that till the said issue is decided, the Authority under the Minimum

Wages Act could not have gone into the issue of payment of minimum

wages to the CHVs. However, I am not inclined to accept the contention

raised by Mr. Peerzada.

PAGE NO. 15 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

18) The demand for absorption in municipal service raised in

the earlier Reference has nothing to do with the demand for payment of

minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. Even a person not in

regular employment of the establishment can raise a demand for

minimum wages. It appears that de�nition of the term ‘workman’ under

Section 2(s) of the ID Act is substantially different from de�nition of the

term ‘employee’ under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act. It would

be apposite to reproduce both the de�nitions:

Section 2(s) of ID Act Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act

(s) “workman” means any person (including

an apprentice) employed in any industry to

do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work for

hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for

the purposes of any proceeding under this

Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in

connection with, or as a consequence of,

that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge

or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but

does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force

Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army

Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police

service or as an officer or other

employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a

managerial or administrative

capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a

supervisory capacity, draws wages

exceeding ten thousand rupees per

mensem or exercises, either by the

nature of the duties attached to the

office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.

(i) “employee” means any person who is

employed for hire or reward to do any work,

skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a

scheduled employment in respect of which

minimum rates of wages have been fixed;

and includes an out-worker to whom any

articles or materials are given out by another

person to be made up, cleaned, washed,

altered, ornamented, finished, repaired,

adapted or otherwise processed for sale for

the purposes of the trade or business of that

other person where the process is to be

carried out either in the home of the out-

worker or in some other premises not being

premises under the control and management

of that other person; and also includes an

employee declared to be an employee by the

appropriate Government; but does not

include any member of the Armed Forces of

the Union.

PAGE NO. 16 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

19) Thus, de�nition of the term ‘employee’ under Section 2(i) of

the Minimum Wages Act appears to be substantially wider. So, every

person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, which is

skilled or unskilled, managerial or clerical, in the scheduled employment

is covered by de�nition of the term ‘employee’ under Section 2(i) of the

Minimum Wages Act. What needs to be established is th at the

employment for hire or reward to do work is under the scheduled

employment for which the minimum rates of wages have be en

prescribed. There is no dispute to the position that establishment of the

Petitioner-Municipal Corporation is a scheduled employment within the

meaning of the Minimum Wages Act. The only contention of the

Petitioner-Municipal Corporation is that CHVs are not ‘employed’ by the

Municipal Corporation and that therefore they cannot be treated as

‘employees’ within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages

Act.

20) In my view, the term ‘employed’ appearing under Section

2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act is not to be confused with the concept of

‘appointment’. Ordinarily, appointments on the establishment of

Municipal Corporation need to be made by following the established

procedure and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The

employees, who are appointed in municipal service are re gular

employees of the Municipal Corporation. The word ‘employed’ in the

de�nition under Section 2(i) has to be read in conjunction with the

words ‘for hire or reward’. Therefore, every person who is paid

remuneration for services rendered for Municipal Corporation would be

covered by the expression ‘employee’ for the purpose of Minimum Wages

PAGE NO. 17 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

Act. Such employee may be permanent, temporary, casual, ad hoc, work

charged, contractual, badli etc. The nomenclature may be different, but

the common thread that runs across the entire class is employment for

hire or reward. Thus, when a person is hired and serves th e

establishment and receives a �xed sum every month as a reward, he

becomes employee within the meaning of the Minimum Wages Act. In

that sense, whether CHVs answer the description of ‘workman’ under

Section 2(s) of the ID Act or not is an irrelevant factor and what needs to

be examined is that they are ‘employees’ for the limited purpose of

determining their entitlement to wages under the Minimum Wages Act.

21) In my view, mere branding of wages paid to the CHVs as

‘honorarium’ would not deny them the status of ‘employees’ for the

purpose of payment of minimum wages. If the nomenclature of reward

paid for hire becomes the decisive factor, it would be easy for the

employer to treat the wages as honorarium to escape the liability under

the Minimum Wages Act. The word ‘wages’ has been de�ned under

Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act as under:

(h) “wages” means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of

money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or

implied, were ful�lled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his

employment or of work done in such employment, and includes house rent

allowance, but does not include—

(i) the value of—

(a) any house-accommodation, supply of light, water, medical

attendance, or

(b) any other amenity or any service excluded by general or

special order of the appropriate Government;

(ii) any contribution paid by the employer to any Pension Fund or

Provident Fund or under any scheme of social insurance;

(iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

PAGE NO. 18 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

(iv) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses

entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or

(v) any gratuity payable on discharge;

22) So, every ‘remuneration’, which is capable of being

expressed in terms of money, which is payable to a person in respect of

his employment becomes wages. Thus, ‘remuneration’ drawn by CHVs

during the course of their engagements, though branded as

‘honorarium’ , would be covered by de�nition of the term ‘wages’ under

Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act.

23) There is no dispute to the position that Municipal

Corporation pays minimum wages to temporary employees. However,

minimum wages are denied in the present case to the volunteers on the

ground that they are never employed by the Municipal Corporation.

However, it is a matter of fact that CHVs work for a considerable period

of time for the Municipal Corporation. Many of them are continued as

volunteers till they cross the age of retirement. Their relationship with

the Municipal Corporation is virtually like an employee. They are

supervised by Health Post doctors and nurses. Their muster rolls are

maintained. Thus, they are not volunteers in true sense who work on

voluntary basis to assist the Municipal Corporation. Ordinarily, the word

‘volunteer’ means a person who offers or agrees to do something without

being forced or paid for. In the present case, Respondents are not

volunteers as understood in common parlance. They have to report for

duties, perform duty for 5 hours, obey orders of Health Post doctors and

nurses, and are paid �xed remuneration every month.

PAGE NO. 19 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

24) It must also be borne in mind that engagement of

Respondents as CHVs is not a matter of casual engagement for few days

as per need. Though the scheme of providing of health related services

commenced in the year 1988 towards implementation of Project funded

by the World Bank, the said scheme is continued for the last 38 long

years. There appears to be no reason why the Municipal Corporation

would discontinue offering health related services to the community. It

is commonly known fact that about 40% population of Mumbai City

resides in slums. The Municipal Corporation has undertaken the noble

task of creating health awareness through community volunteers. The

community volunteers play a dual role. Since they are a part of the same

community, they are well versed with the needs of the residents of

locality. They are more accessible within the community and play an

important role in providing necessary medical facilities to the

community concerned. Thus, they provide an important linkage/bridge

between the doctors and nurses posted at Health Post and t he

community which they serve. They are thus communicators or conveyors

of needs and information of residents in a community to the Doctors and

Nurses at the Heath Post. Additionally, they perform the duties assigned

to them by the Doctors and Nurses at the Health Post. This is how

engagement of local community women assists the Municip al

Corporation in gauging the needs of the community and spread the

health awareness programs in an effective manner.

25) The Governments and its instrumentalities do need to

employ causal and temporary workers for various purposes. Such casual

workers, who do no not have right of absorption in service and who

PAGE NO. 20 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

remain at the mercy of the employer, were also being denied digni�ed

salaries which regular employees earn in the organization. The judgment

of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors.

2

marks a watershed movement in the area of guaranteeing digni�ed

wages to such casual and temporary workers. As a result of the judgment

of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), now it is mandatory for

Governments and its instrumentalities to pay wages at the minimum of

the pay scales payable to regular employees once it is established that

both perform same nature of duties. In para-54 to 61 of the judgment,

the Apex Court has held as under:

54. The Full Bench of the High Court while adjudicating upon the above

controversy had concluded that temporary employees were not entitled to the

minimum of the regular pay scale, merely for the reason, that the activities

carried on by daily wagers and regular employees were similar. The Full Bench

however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the

two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay scale

drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the Full Bench of the

High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder : (Avtar Singh

case [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1

P&H 566] , SCC OnLine P&H para 37)

“(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the

regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection

process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other

eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay

scale from the date of engagement.

(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not

appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are

availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or

its instrumentalities for a suf�cient long period i.e. for 10 years, such

daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to

minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the

assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having

worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in

such category of persons. Their claim for regularisation, if any, may

have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme.

2

(2017) 1 SCC 148

PAGE NO. 21 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more

than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of

continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall

be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.”

54.1. A perusal of the above conclusion drawn in the impugned judgment

(passed by the Full Bench), reveals that the Full Bench carved out an exception

for employees who were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, if

their services had remained continuous (with notional breaks, as well), for a

period of 10 years. This category of temporary employees was extended the

bene�t of wages at the minimum of the regular pay scale. In Umadevi (3)

case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ,

similarly, employees who had rendered 10 years' service were granted an

exception (refer to para 53 of the judgment extracted in the preceding

paragraph). The above position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the

High Court intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the

subject of regularisation of employees, while adjudicating upon the

proposition of pay parity, emerging under the principle of “equal pay for equal

work”. In our view, it is this mix-up, which has resulted in the High Court

recording its afore-extracted conclusions.

54.2. The High Court extended different wages to temporary employees by

categorising them on the basis of their length of service. This is clearly in the

teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour case [Daily Rated Casual

Labour v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 138] . In the above

judgment, this Court held that classi�cation of employees based on their

length of service (those who had not completed 720 days of service, in a period

of 3 years; those who had completed more than 720 days of service—with

effect from 1-4-1977; and those who had completed 1200 days of service), for

payment of different levels of wages (even though they were admittedly

discharging the same duties), was not tenable. The classi�cation was held to be

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

54.3. Based on the consideration recorded hereinabove, the determination in

the impugned judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court, whereby

it classi�ed temporary employees for differential treatment on the subject of

wages, is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

55. In view of all our above conclusions, the decision rendered by the Full

Bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [Avtar Singh v. State of

Punjab, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , dated 11-11-

2011, is liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby set aside. The decision

rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Rajinder

Singh [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 125] is also

liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set aside. We af�rm the

decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar [State of

Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 13009] , with the modi�cation

PAGE NO. 22 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

that the employees concerned would be entitled to the minimum of the pay

scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to

allowances attached to the posts held by them.

56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this Court.

57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of “equal pay for equal

work” has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the

Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of

judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court.

The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the

Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarised

by us in para 42 hereinabove. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has

also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-

charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position,

relating to temporary employees has been summarised by us, in para 44

hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is

being reiterated by us yet again.

58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine arti�cial parameters to

deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid

less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly

not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the

very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a

lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter

to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-

worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would

suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less

wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative

enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action

is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7 of the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:

“7. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone

to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in

particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without

distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of

work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with

the provisions of the present Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;

PAGE NO. 23 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his

employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no

considerations other than those of seniority and competence;

(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and

periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.”

(emphasis supplied)

India is a signatory to the above Covenant having rati�ed the same on 10-4-

1979. There is no escape from the above obligation in view of different

provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law

declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the

principle of “equal pay for equal work” constitutes a clear and unambiguous

right and is vested in every employee—whether engaged on regular or

temporary basis.

60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of

the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to temporary employees

(daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual

basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our

determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were

rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by

regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would

require the application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for

equal work” summarised by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant

aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not dif�cult for us to record the factual

position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel

representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the

present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also

available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during

the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were

being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some

point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees

holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which

was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no

room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the

temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were

being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that

the respondent employees did not possess the quali�cations prescribed for

appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that

any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of

the principles summarised by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no

doubt, that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be applicable to

all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim

wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged

government employees holding the same post.

PAGE NO. 24 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have

no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the

present bunch of cases would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the

pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular

employees holding the same post.

26) The law expounded by the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs.

Jagjit Singh has been reiterated in Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional

Forest Of�cer and Ors.

3

, in which it has held in paras-10 to 12 as under:

10. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity

of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit

Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 148] held as follows: (SCC p. 223, para 58)

“58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine arti�cial

parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same

work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties

and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action

besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human

dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do

so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at

the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and

at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would

suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of

paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an

act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering

position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and

coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh is whether

temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees

appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to

the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same

duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the

sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments

of this Court in Tilak Raj [State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123]

and Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514] , this Court

held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of

the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same

post.

12 In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh, we are unable to uphold the view of

the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled to be paid the

3

(2019) 12 SCC 297

PAGE NO. 25 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights

of the appellants relating to the regularisation of their services. We are

concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti

Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337] relating to persons who are

similarly situated to the appellants and later af�rmed in Jagjit Singh that

temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they

continue in service.

27) Thus, post Jagjit Singh era, it is not permissible for

Government and its instrumentalities to exploit casual workers by paying

them wages as per whims and caprices of the employer. Now it is a right

for even casual/temporary workers to receive digni�ed wages at least at

the minimum of scales drawn by permanent employees. They may not

earn promotions or increments and there is no guarantee f or

employment. However, so long as they are continued, th ey are

guaranteed digni�ed wages.

28) In the present case, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex

Court in Jagjit Singh may not strictly apply on account of the fact that

CHVs do not perform duties and responsibilities of permanent workers.

However, the spirit behind the judgment needs to be appreciated. The

spirit is that once a person is hired for reward by Governments or its

instrumentalities, they must be paid digni�ed wages and should not be

exploited.

29) The Municipal Corporation is aware of the important role

played by the CHVs. It is aware that the vital health related programs

cannot be taken to the grassroots levels unless assistance of community

women volunteers is taken. Recognizing the vital role played by the

CHVs, the Municipal Corporation has increased the remuneration

PAGE NO. 26 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

payable to them from time to time. As of now, the remuneration payable

to CHVs is represented as Rs.14,000/- per month. No doubt, they do not

perform full-time work. They are expected to discharge duties for only 5

hours in a day. In my view therefore, they need to be paid wages at the

minimum rates prescribed in the Noti�cation at least for those 5 hours.

30) There are several types of workers who are given the

nomenclature ‘volunteers’ by Governments and its instrumentalities like

ASHA workers (Accredited Social Health Activist), Anganwadi Sevikas etc. I

do not propose to broaden the scope of enquiry in the present case so as

to cover ASHA workers engaged by National Health Mission or

Anganwadi Sevikas engaged under the Integrated Child Development

Services Scheme in the matter of payment of minimum wages. However,

so far as MCGM is concerned, in my view, CHVs need to be paid at least

digni�ed wages so long as their services are hired. As observed above,

MCGM is already paying them what they call as honorarium of

Rs.14,000/-. The MCGM therefore cannot really be accused of ‘exploiting’

them, in real sense, by paying them meager wages. However, though the

amount of remuneration of Rs.14,000/- offered by MCGM to CHVs may

not be called pittance, at the same time, law requires MCGM to pay

minimum wages to every worker as noti�ed under the Minimum Wages

Act.

31) It must be noted that even when contracts are awarded by

Municipal Corporations on a turnkey basis, it is ensured that workers

engaged by contractors are paid minimum wages. In all the tenders

issued by the Municipal Corporation, a speci�c condition is put for

PAGE NO. 27 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

ensuring that minimum wages are paid by the contractors to the workers.

To illustrate, when a contract for handling the solid waste is issued by

the Municipal Corporation, though the contract may be on the basis of

volume of solid waste handled without reference to wages of workers, the

Municipal Corporation still insists that the contractor must pay

minimum wages to his worker. This is also because the Municipal

Corporation has the responsibility of paying minimum wages even to

workers of the contractors on account of provisions of Section 21 of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in capacity as

principal employer. It is thus unfathomable that Municipal Corporation

ensures payment of minimum wages to someone who is hired by

contractor and with whom there is no absolutely no relationship with

the Municipal Corporation, but to CHVs, who are directly paid

remuneration by the Municipal Corporation, minimum wages are not

payable.

32) Neither of the parties have brought to the notice of this

Court any judgment of the Apex Court dealing with the issue of payment

of minimum wages to volunteers engaged in schemes implemented by

the Governments. It would however be apt to refer to views taken by

some of the High Courts. The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat and

Ors. vs. Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union and Ors.

4

had an occasion to

deal with the issue of wages payable to Anganwadi workers. The demand

for treatment of Anganwadi workers and helpers as regularly selected

permanent employees holding civil posts is rejected by the Gujarat High

Court. It has held that the Anganwadi centers do not have permanent

4

2025 SCC Online Guj 3426

PAGE NO. 28 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

status and can be closed once the objective of the scheme is achieved.

The prayer for payment of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is also rejected by

the Division Bench. However, so far as the issue of determination of

wages is concerned, the Gujarat High Court has held that Anganwadi

workers and helpers are entitled to receive ‘living wages’ which is above

minimum and fair wages. The Gujarat High Court held as under:

67. The �nal issue, which remains to be deliberated upon, is the conferment of

minimum wages to the AWWs and AWHs.

68. In this regard, we may borrow the perception of the Constitution Bench of

the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd.,

New Delhi v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1332, wherein the Apex Court, while

examining the issue of �xation and revision of wages under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, has held as under:

“5. The �xation of wage structure is among the most dif�cult tasks that

industrial adjudication has to tackle. On the one hand not only the

demands of social justice but also the claims of national economy require

that attempts should be made to secure to workmen a fair share of the

national income which they help to produce, on the other hand, care has to

be taken that the attempt at a fair distribution does not tend to dry up the

source of the national income itself. On the one hand, better living

conditions for workmen that can only be possible by giving them a “living

wage” will tend to increase the nation's wealth and income on the other

hand, unreasonable inroads on the pro�ts of the capitalists might have a

tendency to drive capital away from fruitful employment and even to affect

prejudicially capital formation itself. The rise in prices that often results

from the rise of the workmen's wages may in its turn affect other members

of the community and may even affect prejudicially the living conditions of

the workmen themselves. The effect of such a rise in price on the Country's

international trade cannot also be always ignored. Thus numerous complex

factors, some of which are economic and some spring from social

philosophy give rise to con�icting considerations that have to be borne in

mind. Nor does the process of valuation of the numerous factors remain

static.

6. In trying to keep true to the two points of social philosophy and

economic necessities which vie for consideration, industrial adjudication

has set for itself certain standards in the matter of wage �xation. At the

bottom of the ladder, there is the minimum basic wage which the employer

PAGE NO. 29 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

of any industrial labour must pay in order to be allowed to continue an

industry. Above this is the fair wage, which may roughly be said to

approximate to the need based minimum, in the sense of a wage which is

“adequate to cover the normal needs of the average employee regarded as a

human being in a civilised society.” Above the fair wage is the “living wage”

a wage “which will maintain the workman in the highest state of industrial

ef�ciency, which will enable him to provide his family with all the material

things which are needed for their health and physical well-being, enough to

enable him to qualify to discharge his duties as a citizen.” (Cited with

approval by Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar in Standard Vacuum Company's

Case (1) from “The living Wage” by Philip Snowden).”

69. Subsequently, in the case of Workmen represented by Secretary v. Reptakos

Brett. & Co. Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 290, the Apex Court has reiterated as under:

“12. The concept of ‘minimum wage’ is no longer the same as it was in

1936. Even 1957 is way behind. A worker's wage is no longer a contract

between an employer and an employee. It has the force of collective

bargaining under the labour laws. Each category of the wage structure has

to be tested at the anvil of social justice which is the live-�bre of our society

today. Keeping in view the socioeconomic aspect of the wage structure, we

are of the view that it is necessary to add the following additional

component as a guide for �xing the minimum wage in the industry:

“(vi) children's education, medical requirement minimum

recreation including festivals/ceremonies and provision for old age

marriages etc. should further constitute 25 per cent of the total

minimum wage.”

13. The wage structure which approximately answers the above six

components is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence level.

The employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under all

circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the minimum wage has no

right to engage labour and no justi�cation to run the industry”.

14 A living wage has been promised to the workers under the Constitution.

A ‘socialist’ framework to enable the working people a decent standard of

life, has further been promised by the 42nd Amendment. The workers are

hopefully looking forward to achieve the said ideal. The promises are

pilling-up but the day of ful�lment is nowhere in sight. Industrial wage-

looking as a whole - has not yet risen higher than the level of minimum

wage.”

70. Albeit, we have addressed the �nancial implications of “regularization”-

absorption” of AWWs and AWHs on Class-III and Class-IV posts however,

PAGE NO. 30 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

concurrently, we cannot be seen as intransigent for enhancement of wages.

Indubitably, the AWWs and AWHs are being paid a meager amount of Rs.

10,000/- and Rs. 5,500/- respectively. Though, the foregoing decisions of the

Apex Court relate to the �xation of wages of workmen/labourers governed by

the Labour Laws, the observations made by the Apex Court relating to the

socio-economic factors, while �xing the wages, cannot be ignored and will

apply to the working conditions, responsibilities and the onerous duties of the

AWWs and AWHs, more particularly on their inclusion under the umbrella of

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court

almost 60 years back has emphasized the living conditions of workmen, rise in

prices and various complex factors, some of which are economic and some

spring from social philosophy give rise to con�icting considerations that have

to be borne in mind. The Apex court has categorized, ‘minimum basic wage’,

‘fair wage’ and ‘living wage’. The ‘minimum basic wage’ is paid in order to be

allowed to continue an industry. Thereafter, above that is the ‘fair wage’, which

may roughly be said to approximate to the need based minimum, in the sense

of a wage which is “adequate to cover the normal needs of the average

employee regarded as a human being in a civilized society.” Above the fair

wage is the “living wage” a wage “which will maintain the workman in the

highest state of industrial ef�ciency, which will enable him to provide his

family with all the material things which are needed for their health and

physical well-being, enough to enable him to qualify to discharge his duties as

a citizen. Subsequently, in the case of Reptakos Brett. & Co. Ltd. (supra), the

Apex Court has asserted the socio-economic facet of the wage structure. The

Apex Court held that while �xing the minimum wage, the industry has to add

the component of children's education, medical requirement minimum

recreation, including festivals/ceremonies and provision for old age marriages

etc. It further held that a wage structure, which approximately answers the

above six components, is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence

level, and the employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and

under all circumstances. The Apex Court has also cautioned that an employer,

who cannot pay the minimum wage, has no right to engage labour and no

justi�cation to run the industry.

71. In the decision of Maniben (supra), the Apex Court has held that “Thus, the

honorarium paid to AWWs and AWHs will also be covered by the de�nition of

“wages”. As AWWs and AWHs are employed by the State government for wages in

the establishment to which the 1972 Act “applies”, the AWWs and AWHs are

employee within the meaning of 1972 Act. In view of the said Rules of the Gujarat

Government, the Aanganwadi Centers are not under the control of the Central

Government. Therefore, the State Government will be an appropriate Government

within the meaning of clause(a) of Section 2 of the 1972 Act.”

72. Thus, considering the nature of duties and the mode of appointment, in

our considered opinion, the AWWs and AWHs are entitled to at least “Living

wage” above the ‘Minimum’ and ‘Fair wage’ so that it may supply the need of

PAGE NO. 31 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

their families with all the material things, which are needed for their health

and physical well-being, enough to enable them to qualify to discharge their

duties as a citizens. The meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,500/- to the

AWWs and AWHs impinges their arduous obligations. The irony is that the

AWWs and AWHs, who ful�ll the needs of pregnant and lactating mothers,

health and education of minors, are deprived of living a life with dignity and

respect for want of apposite remuneration. Hence, the denial of “Living Wage”

to the AWWs and AWHs is violative of fundamental rights enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

33) The Allahabad High Court in Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of

UP

5

has dealt with the issue of payment of minimum wages to

Safaikarmis engaged for sweeping activities in police stations who were

being paid a �xed honorarium of Rs. 1200/- per month.

22. Accepting the respondents' case that the petitioners are part-timers,

they are clearly entitled to receive minimum wages, �xed and revised

from time to time under the Act of 1948, and not in accordance with the

Government Order dated 09.03.2019. The Government Order dated

09.03.2019 is an executive order of the Government, revising wages for

part-time sweepers, employed in police stations, chowkis, from Rs.600/-

per month to Rs.1200/-. It has to give way to the minimum wages �xed

by a noti�cation issued by the State Government under the Act of 1948,

in case of a scheduled employment. The rates �xed by the noti�cation

under the Act of 1948 is statutory in character and would, therefore,

prevail over the Government Order dated 09.03.2019, a purely executive

order.

23. A similar question arose in case of part-time sweepers, employed in

the establishment of the Regional Ayurvedic/ Unani Of�cers, Behraich

in Amarjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (4) ADJ 540 (LB). In

Amarjeet Yadav (supra), it was held:

“8. From the above it becomes abundantly clear that since

sweeping as an employment �nds 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.

9. Next issue is whether the respondents as an employer are

exempted from the application of the Act of 1948. Section 2(e)

5

Writ A 10655 of 2024 decided on 15 November 2025

PAGE NO. 32 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

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 :

xxxx

11. The Learned Standing Counsel has failed to place on record

any noti�cation 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.

12. Therefore, respondent No. 3 Regional Ayurvedic/Unani

Of�cer, Bahraich is directed to pay minimum wages to the

petitioner as noti�ed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with

regard to part-time sweepers within a period of two months

from the

date a certi�ed copy of this order is placed before him.”

24. In the overall conspectus of facts while holding that the petitioners

are part-time wagers and working as such in the Police Stations

Madanpur and Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur, it is also held that they

are entitled to be remunerated according to the minimum wages

noti�ed from time to time under the Act of 1948 and not in accordance

with Government Order dated 09.03.2019.

34) A Reference can also be made to judgment delivered by this

Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Mumbai

Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghatana

6

, wherein this

Court has upheld the order passed by the Industrial Court holding that

Welfare Centre Volunteers are eligible to appear for examination for

appointment as Clerks. In that case, two Welfare Center Volunteers were

already appointed as Clerks by the Municipal Corporation after they

clearing the examination. The remaining 5 Welfare Center Volunteers

could not be appointed as Clerks as they were not allowed to appear in

6

Writ Petition No.13695 of 2016 decided on 14 July 2026

PAGE NO. 33 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

the selection. This Court has therefore granted them compensation. The

relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:

18) So far as the 5 volunteers, whose names appear at serial nos.3 to 7 in the

complaint are concerned, the Industrial Court directed the Petitioner to permit

them to appear in the examination for promotion to the post of Clerk,

whenever conducted. The said direction is issued on the ground that the

Municipal Corporation relaxed the criteria of 4 hours per day and 8 years of

service to 3 hours per day and 9 years of service. However, there is no direct

document on record to draw such presumption. The requirement of 4 hours

duty is indicated in the Rules of 1979, which are applied in every Circular. Even

in 2011, when selection was held, the prescribed eligibility criteria for part-

time workers was 4 hours duty every day. The Industrial Court further referred

to the decision taken in the meeting for relaxation of the said criteria. This is

clear from the following observations in the impugned order of the Industrial

Court:

xxx

19) It appears that the Industrial Court also took note of Written Statement

�led in Reference (IT) No.34 of 1999 for recording a �nding that volunteers

working in welfare centers, who put in 9 years of service were eligible for being

considered as Clerk provided they had put in 3 hours per day. In addition to

Written Statement, it appears that evidence was led by Petitioner’s witness in

the said Reference recognizing the right of volunteers of welfare centers

putting in 3 hours of service for 9 years. This is clear from the following

�ndings of the Industrial Court :

xxx

20) Thus, there appears to be pleading as well as evidence on behalf of the

Petitioner in Reference (IT) No. 34 of 1999 about providing opportunity to

welfare center volunteers putting in 3 hours of service for 9 years for

promotion to the post of Clerk. In that view of the matter, though the Rule

does not appear to be speci�cally amended, there appears to be a policy

decision adopted as well as practice followed for permitting part-time workers

with 3 hours of duty and 9 years of service to participate in selection for

promotion to the post of Clerk. Therefore, the Industrial Court cannot be

seriously faulted in directing Petitioner to provide opportunity to the 5

volunteers to participate in examination for promotion to the post of Clerk as

and when conducted.

26) I have not found any in�rmity in the view taken by the Industrial Court

that the Municipal Corporation had relaxed the condition and had promised to

consider welfare center volunteers with 3 hours duties and 9 years’ service for

appointment on the post of Clerk. By making that representation, Reference

(IT) No. 34 of 1999 was defeated by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, denial of

PAGE NO. 34 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

opportunity to the 5 volunteers in the 2011 selection appears to be improper.

No relief can be granted to them on account of they not securing opportunity

to compete in the selection process. All of them have crossed the age of

retirement. In my view therefore, it would be appropriate to award lump sum

compensation to those 5 volunteers who have missed the bus of becoming

regular Clerks on par with their two cohorts. Considering the facts of the case,

it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of

those volunteers. This arrangement is being done considering the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, which shall not be treated as precedent in

any other case.

35) This Court is not referring to the judgment in MCGM vs.

Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghatan a

(supra) for holding that Respondents are direct employees of the

Municipal Corporation. Even if they are not treated as direct employees

for purposes such as regularization, appointments as Clerks, etc, still the

bene�t of minimum wages cannot be denied to them in view of the above

discussions.

36) The Respondents have relied on some of the orders passed

by the Industrial Court during pendency of the Petition to buttress their

contention that CHVs are otherwise held to be employees of Municipal

Corporation. It appears that in Complaint (ULP) No.24 of 2016 �led by

the Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Mahasangh, directions are

issued by the Industrial Court for appointment of committees as per

agreement dated 19 September 2011 for resolving demands such as

minimum wages for contract labourers, labourers under the Dattak Vasti

Scheme, and community organisers under the Nehru Rojgar Yojana.

However, it would not be appropriate for this Court to refer to the orders

passed by the Industrial Court in unrelated cases for the purpose of

assuming existence of employer-employee relationship in the present

PAGE NO. 35 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

case. The present case relates to a very basic demand of payment of

digni�ed wages to CHVs without involving any other element such as

regularisation, promotion etc.

37) Conspectus of the above discussion is that CHVs are utilized

by the Municipal Corporation for carrying out vital activities of

spreading heath awareness amongst the community. Their engagements

are not casual for satisfying a temporary need of the Municipal

Corporation. The program on which they are engaged has continued for

38 long years. Though branded as volunteers, CHVs almost work as

workers of the Municipal Corporation. They do not merely ‘volunteer’ in

real sense but actually discharge vital duties for the Municipal

Corporation for reward. They have worked for the Municipal Corporation

for the last over 38 long years. Many of them have crossed age of

retirement. They are not being absorbed in municipal service. They do

not receive other service bene�ts like increments, promotions, leave

wages etc. They would also not receive pension. They do not have any

right to remain as CHVs and they can be discontinued when need for

their services ceases. However, so long as they are utilized, they must be

paid wages prescribed under the Noti�cation issued under the Minimum

Wages Act. Therefore, for the limited purpose of payment of digni�ed

wages, they will have to be treated as ‘employees’.

38) I am therefore of the view that denial of minimum wages to

CHVs is clearly against the legislative objective of the Minimum Wages

Act. The Industrial Tribunal has rightly upheld entitlement of CHVs to

minimum wages. No doubt, award of minimum wages to CHVs may put

PAGE NO. 36 of 37

13 August 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 1156 of 2021 and group

some �nancial burden on the Municipal Corporation. However, �nancial

burden alone cannot be a reason for denying digni�ed and living wages

to CHVs who now form part of mainstream activities of the Municipal

Corporation. Mere grant of minimum wages to CHVs does not make them

entitled to any other bene�ts. By mere reason of grant of minimum

wages, they cannot claim absorption/permanency in municipal service.

In my view therefore, except some �nancial burden, grant of minimum

wages to CHVs does not prejudice the Municipal Corporation in any

manner. They will be entitled to draw minimum rates of wages

corresponding to the number of hours of duty performed by them. I am

therefore not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Industrial

Tribunal.

39) The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits. They are accordingly

dismissed without any order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]

40) After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel

appearing for Municipal Corporation seeks stay of the judgment for a

period of six weeks. It is however seen that there has been no stay on

implementation of the judgment and order dated 7 September 2020

during pendency of the present Petitions. In that view, prayer for stay is

rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]

PAGE NO. 37 of 37

13 August 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally

signed by

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date:

2026.08.13

17:16:09

+0530