2003 (11) TMI 585 - SC - Indian Laws

Applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work Whether the duties and functions of two categories of employment are at par, and, thus, parity in pay-scales is not permissible?

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'
2. Differentiation based on educational qualifications
3. Judicial review of executive decisions on qualifications for posts
4. Binding nature of precedents and judicial discipline
5. Equitable considerations and delay in filing writ petitions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work':
The primary issue in this case is the applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. The Supreme Court examined whether Operators-cum-Mechanics without engineering diplomas could claim the same pay scale as Sub-Assistant Engineers. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. However, the Court clarified that this doctrine does not automatically apply solely because the nature of the work is the same. Educational qualifications and the source of recruitment are relevant considerations that can justify different pay scales. The Court held that "employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualifications can be treated differently."

2. Differentiation Based on Educational Qualifications:
The Court emphasized that educational qualifications are a valid criterion for classification. In this case, Sub-Assistant Engineers required a diploma in engineering, whereas Operators-cum-Mechanics only needed a school final examination and a certificate from an ITI. The Court cited State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, stating, "Educational qualifications have been recognized by this Court as a safe criterion for determining the validity of classification." The Court concluded that the differentiation in pay scales based on educational qualifications is constitutionally valid and permissible.

3. Judicial Review of Executive Decisions on Qualifications for Posts:
The Court asserted that it is the executive's prerogative to lay down qualifications for posts, not the judiciary's. The Court stated, "The Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot hold that matriculates with a certificate from ITIs or simply graduates in science would be entitled to hold the posts of Sub-Assistant Engineers." The Court underscored that it cannot interfere with the executive's decision unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles.

4. Binding Nature of Precedents and Judicial Discipline:
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to binding precedents. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court erred by not considering the appellant's contentions on their own merits, especially when the issue of different pay scales based on educational qualifications had been conclusively settled in Debdas Kumar's case. The Court emphasized that "an order passed to the contrary by another learned Single Judge in ignorance of the earlier binding precedent by itself would not constitute a binding precedent and may be held to have been rendered per incuriam."

5. Equitable Considerations and Delay in Filing Writ Petitions:
The Court also considered equitable factors and the delay in filing writ petitions. The respondents, who were merely graduates in science, approached the High Court in 1992, long after the initial writ petitions were filed in 1976. The Court held that "the respondents furthermore even are not entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and latches on their part in filing the writ petition." The Court noted that granting relief to the respondents would contravene statutory rules and potentially prejudice other employees who were not before the Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court, concluding that the differentiation in pay scales based on educational qualifications is constitutionally valid and that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply in this case. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →