Bombay High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation to woman who worked for 26 years without being regularised

The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently ordered the State government to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to a 64-year-old woman for breaching her human rights and exploiting her for over two and a half decades by making her work without regularising her service [Joaquina Gomes E Colaco vs State of Goa]..A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Bharat Deshpande noted that the woman was engaged to sweep and clean the offices and toilets of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax in Margao, Goa when she was 38 years old and she continued to work till the age of 63. "We are satisfied that the State, taking advantage of the circumstances in which the Petitioner was placed and the apparent inequalities in bargaining power, has exploited her for over two and a half decades. Therefore, though no relief of regularisation can be granted to her, we think this is a fit case where the State should compensate her for violating her rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India," the bench said in the order passed on February 1. .The petitioner had applied for discontinuing her services owing to her old age. She had also made a representation to the authorities to grant her some post-retirement benefits. However, the same was rejected in December 2018 on the ground that her 26 years of service was neither contractual nor was she a nominal muster roll (NMR) employee. .Noting the facts of the case, the bench said it was apparent that the State had breached the petitioner's right not to be treated in an arbitrary fashion and her right to life and dignity. "The State Government has also breached the petitioner's human rights. For all this exploitation, the State must compensate her even though the relief of ex post facto regularisation of her services cannot be granted to her," the bench opined. .In its order, the bench referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that no one would willingly supply labour or service to another for less than the minimum wage when he knows that under the law, he is entitled to get minimum wage for the labour or service provided by him. "Where a person is suffering from hunger or starvation, when he has no resources at all to fight disease or feed his wife and children or even to hide their nakedness, where utter grinding poverty has broken his back and reduced him to a state of helplessness and despair and where no other employment is available to alleviate the rigour of his poverty, he would have no choice but to accept any work that comes him way, even if the remuneration offered to him is less than the minimum wage," the bench observed. The bench, therefore, ordered the State to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation. .Senior Advocate SD Lotlikar along with advocates T Sequeira and S Kenny appeared for the Petitioner.Additional Government Advocate Sapna Mordekar represented the State. .[Read Order]