Case: MANIBEN MAGANBHAI BHARIYA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DAHOD &amp; ORS

State Government. However, the State Government gets contributions from the Central Government. Moreover, it can always be said that occupation is carried out in the establishments of Anganwadi centres. Hence, Anganwadi Centre is an establishment within the meaning of clause (e) of Section 2 of the Contract Labour Act. 26. The Code of Wages, 2019 is an enactment that received the assent of the President on 8th August 2019. However, only a few provisions therein have been brought into force so far. Clause (m) of Section 2 thereof defines establishment which means any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture, or occupation is carried out and it includes the Government establishments. There is a similar definition of establishment under clause 29 of Section 2 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 which received the assent of the President on 28th September 2020. These provisions show the legislative intent to include the various Government establishments in the category of establishments in the welfare statutes. 27. It is not the case of the State Government that every Anganwadi centre is a separate entity. Anganwadi centres and Mini Anganwadi centres are a part of the Anganwadi establishment of the State Government. The Anganwadi centres have been employing ten or more AWWs and AWHs in the State. Therefore, I have no manner of doubt that Anganwadi centres are establishments contemplated by clause (b) of Sub--section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act. The learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon a decision of this Court in Bangalore Turf Club (supra). It was a case arising out of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The said Act does not define establishment. The decision has no relevance in this case. 28. Clauses (e), (f), and (s) of Section 2 of the 1972 Act which define employee, employer and wages are relevant. The same read thus: (e) employee means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity; (f) employer means, in relation to any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop: - (i) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government or a State Government, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned, (ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority. (iii) in any other case, the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, and where the said affairs are entrusted to any other person, whether called a manager, or managing director or by any other name, such person; (s) wages means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance. 29. The definition of wages is very wide. It means all emoluments which are earned by an employee on duty. Thus, the honorarium paid to AWWs and AWHs will also be covered by the definition of wages. As AWWs and AWHs are employed by the State Government for wages in the establishments to which the 1972 Act applies, the AWWs and AWHs are employees within the meaning of the 1972 Act. In view of the said Rules of the Gujarat Government, the Anganwadi centres 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. Accordingly, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of AWWs and AWHs will be the employer within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. 30. I may add here that the Government of India by a notification dated 3rd April 1997 has notified educational institutions as establishments under clause (c) of Sub--section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act. In the Anganwadi centres, the activity of running a pre- school for the children in the age group of 3 to 6 years is being conducted. It is purely an educational activity. The job of teaching is done by AWWs and AWHs. The State Government is running pre- schools in Anganwadi centres in accordance with Section 11 of the RTE Act. 31. For the reasons recorded above, I have no manner of doubt that the 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs and AWHs. In the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench was swayed by the view taken by this Court in the case of Ameerbi which was followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar Union (Regd.) (supra). These decisions, for the reasons recorded earlier, have no bearing on the issue involved in these appeals. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the 1972 Act was applicable to AWWs and AWHs. The Controlling Authority has granted simple interest at the rate of 10% on the overdue gratuity amounts. All eligible AWWs and AWHs shall be entitled to the benefit of interest.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The appropriate Government, in this case, is the Government of Gujarat. For giving effect to Section 11 of the RTE Act, a provision has been made by the State Government to conduct pre-primary schools for children above the age of three years in the Anganwadi centres. Moreover, as specifically laid down in the aforesaid Government Resolution, it is the duty of AWWs to provide a pleasant educational environment at Anganwadi centres. It is also the duty of AWWs to assess the growth of children and make entries in the booklet titled My Growth Story. Thus, Anganwadi centres are also running pre-primary schools for children in the age group of 3 to 6 years. The educational activity of running pre--school is an integral part of Anganwadi centres. AWWs and AWHs who are managing the Anganwadi centres have a duty to look after pre- primary schools as well. We may also note here that on 8th March 2018, the Government of India has launched the National Nutrition Mission by the name The Prime Ministers Overarching Scheme for Holistic Nourishment. The responsibility of implementing a part of the scheme is of the Anganwadi centres. Under the National Education Policy, 2020, there is a proposal to make available Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) to children having socio- economic disadvantaged backgrounds. It is provided that ECCE will be extended through Anganwadi centres.16. In the case of Ameerbi (supra), this Court dealt with the issue whether AWWs and AWHs were holding civil posts. The issue was whether the original applications filed by AWWs before the State Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 were maintainable. This Court held that the posts of AWWs were not statutory posts and the same have been created in terms of ICDS. Therefore, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the State Government and AWWs. It was held that the AWWs do not carry on any function of the State. It was observed that no Recruitment Rules have been framed for appointing AWWs. Much water has flown after the decision in the case of Ameerbi (supra) was rendered in the year 2007. When the said decision was rendered by this Court, the 2013 Act was not on the statute book. As noted earlier, the Anganwadi centres established under ICDS have been given statutory status under the 2013 Act. Moreover, under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 2013 Act, the Anganwadi centres perform statutory duties under the 2013 Act. I have already referred to the Government Resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated 25th November 2019 in extenso.17. The Resolution incorporates the said Rules which lay down selection criteria, educational qualifications, the process of selection, etc. of AWWs and AWHs. Under the said Rules, a detailed process of making appointments of AWWs and AWHs has been incorporated. It also incorporates the marking system for the selection of AWWs and AWHs. The said Rules provide that the AWWs and AWHs will continue in the service till the age of 58 years. Even the minimum and maximum age of the candidates for participating in the process of recruitment has been laid down. There are provisions made for the termination of services of AWWs and AWHs. Though the said rules refer to their service as honorary service, the use of the word honorary is not determinative of the status of AWWs and AWHs.18. In view of the provisions of the 2013 Act and Section 11 of the RTE Act, Anganwadi centres also perform statutory duties. Therefore, even AWWs and AWHs perform statutory duties under the said enactments. The Anganwadi centres have, thus, become an extended arm of the Government in view of the enactment of the 2013 Act and the Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat. The Anganwadi centres have been established to give effect to the obligations of the State defined under Article 47 of the Constitution. It can be safely said that the posts of AWWs and AWHs are statutory posts.19. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the appointments of AWWs and AWHs are governed by the said Rules. In view of the 2013 Act, AWWs and AWHs are no longer a part of any temporary scheme of ICDS. It cannot be said that the employment of AWWs and AWHs has temporary status. In view of the changes brought about by the 2013 Act and the aforesaid Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ameerbi will not detain this Court any further from deciding the issue. For the reasons stated above, the decision in the case of Ameerbi will not have any bearing on the issue involved in these appeals.PLIGHT OF AWWs AND AWHs20. AWWs and AWHs have been assigned all-pervasive duties, which include identification of the beneficiaries, cooking nutritious food, serving healthy food to the beneficiaries, conducting pre- school for the children of the age group of 3 to 6 years, and making frequent home visits for various reasons. Implementation of very important and innovative provisions relating to children, pregnant women as well as lactating mothers under the 2013 Act has been entrusted to them. It is thus impossible to accept the contention that the job assigned to AWWs and AWHs is a part-time job. The Government Resolution dated 25th November 2019, which prescribes duties of AWWs and AWHs, does not lay down that their job is a part-time job. Considering the nature of duties specified thereunder, it is full-time employment. In the State of Gujarat, AWWs are being paid monthly remuneration of only Rs.7,800/-- and AWHs are being paid monthly remuneration of only Rs.3,950/--. AWWs working in mini-Anganwadi centres are being paid a sum of Rs.4,400/-- per month. The important tasks of providing food security to children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years, pregnant women as well as lactating mothers have been assigned to them. In addition, there is a duty to render pre--school education. For all this, they are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society.This Court in the case of the Labour Court, Jullunder (supra) has given a wide interpretation to clause (b). In paragraph 3 of the said decision, this Court held thus:3. In this appeal, the learned Additional Solicitor General contends on behalf of the appellant that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot be invoked by the respondents because the Project does not fall within the scope of Section 1(3) of that Act. Section 1(3) provides that the Act will apply to:(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company;(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months;(c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.According to the parties, it is clause (b) alone which needs to be considered for deciding whether the Act applies to the Project. The Labour Court has held that the Project is an establishment within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, Section 2(ii) (g) of which defines an industrial establishment to mean any establishment in which any work relating to the construction development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, relating to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of water, or relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on. It is urged for the appellant that the Payment of Wages Act is not an enactment contemplated by Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Payment of Wages Act, it is pointed out, is a Central enactment and Section 1(3)(b), it is said, refers to a law enacted by the State Legislature. We are unable to accept the contention. Section 1(3)(b) speaks of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State. There can be no dispute that the Payment of Wages Act is in force in the State of Punjab. Then, it is submitted, the Payment of Wages Act is not a law in relation to shops and establishments. As to that, the Payment of Wages Act is a statute which, while it may not relate to shops, relates to a class of establishments, that is to say, industrial establishments. But it is contended, the law referred to under Section 1(3)(b) must be a law which relates to both shops and establishments, such as the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. It is difficult to accept that contention because there is no warrant for so limiting the meaning of the expression law in Section 1(3)(b). The expression is comprehensive in its scope, and can mean a law in relation to shops as well as, separately, a law in relation to establishments, or a law in relation to shops and commercial establishments and a law in relation to non--commercial establishments. Had Section 1(3)(b) intended to refer to a single enactment, surely the appellant would have been able to point to such a statute, that is to say, a statute relating to shops and establishments, both commercial and non--commercial. The Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act does not relate to all kinds of establishments. Besides shops, it relates to commercial establishments alone. Had the intention of Parliament been, when enacting Section 1(3)(b), to refer to a law relating to commercial establishments, it would not have left the expression establishments unqualified. We have carefully examined the various provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and we are unable to discern any reason for giving the limited meaning to Section 1(3)(b) urged before us on behalf of the appellant. Section 1(3)(b) applies to every establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to establishments in a State. Such an establishment would include an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to an establishment in which any work relating to the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of water, or relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on. The Hydel Upper Bari Doab Construction Project is such an establishment, and the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to it.Hence, establishments contemplated by clause (b) can be establishments within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in a State in relation to establishments. Therefore, I have examined the laws in relation to establishments which are in force in the State of Gujarat.27. It is not the case of the State Government that every Anganwadi centre is a separate entity. Anganwadi centres and Mini Anganwadi centres are a part of the Anganwadi establishment of the State Government. The Anganwadi centres have been employing ten or more AWWs and AWHs in the State. Therefore, I have no manner of doubt that Anganwadi centres are establishments contemplated by clause (b) of Sub--section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act. The learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon a decision of this Court in Bangalore Turf Club (supra). It was a case arising out of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The said Act does not define establishment. The decision has no relevance in this case.29. The definition of wages is very wide. It means all emoluments which are earned by an employee on duty. Thus, the honorarium paid to AWWs and AWHs will also be covered by the definition of wages. As AWWs and AWHs are employed by the State Government for wages in the establishments to which the 1972 Act applies, the AWWs and AWHs are employees within the meaning of the 1972 Act. In view of the said Rules of the Gujarat Government, the Anganwadi centres 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. Accordingly, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of AWWs and AWHs will be the employer within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.30. I may add here that the Government of India by a notification dated 3rd April 1997 has notified educational institutions as establishments under clause (c) of Sub--section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act. In the Anganwadi centres, the activity of running a pre- school for the children in the age group of 3 to 6 years is being conducted. It is purely an educational activity. The job of teaching is done by AWWs and AWHs. The State Government is running pre- schools in Anganwadi centres in accordance with Section 11 of the RTE Act.31. For the reasons recorded above, I have no manner of doubt that the 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs and AWHs. In the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench was swayed by the view taken by this Court in the case of Ameerbi which was followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar Union (Regd.) (supra). These decisions, for the reasons recorded earlier, have no bearing on the issue involved in these appeals. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the 1972 Act was applicable to AWWs and AWHs. The Controlling Authority has granted simple interest at the rate of 10% on the overdue gratuity amounts. All eligible AWWs and AWHs shall be entitled to the benefit of interest.