2016 (10) TMI 1357 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement of temporary employees to the minimum of the pay-scale as was being paid to similarly placed regular employees - whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees ad-hoc appointees employees appointed on casual basis contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale alongwith dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned posts? HELD THAT - This Court held that the concept of equality implies and requires equal treatment for those who are situated equally. Comparison between unequals is not possible. Since the workers who had approached this Court had failed to establish that they were situated similarly as others they could not be extended benefits which were being given to those with whom they claimed parity. And therefore since there were no other employees comparable to the employees working in the Grih Kalyan Kendras this Court declined to entertain the prayer made by the Petitioners. This Court while adjudicating upon the controversy arrived at the conclusion that the High Court had granted relief to the Respondents on the assumption that two vacant posts of Assistant Engineer were utilized for appointing the Respondents. The above impression was found to be ex-facie fallacious by this Court. This Court was of the view that the orders of appointment issued to the Respondents did not lead to the inference that they were appointed against the two vacant posts of Assistant Engineer. Despite the above this Court held that the decision of the Appellant Corporation to effect economy by depriving the Respondents even the minimum of pay-scale was totally arbitrary and unjustified. This Court expressed the view that the very fact that the Respondents were engaged on a consolidated salary of 2000 per month while the prescribed pay-scale of the post of Assistant Engineer in the other branches was 2200-4000 and that of Junior Engineer was 1600-2660 was sufficient to infer that both the Respondents were engaged to work against the posts of Assistant Engineer. 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 summarized. 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 summarized by us in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared is being reiterated yet again. It is fallacious to determine artificial 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. Any one 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 dependents 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 - 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. 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 qualifications 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 summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt that the principle of equal pay for equal work would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees so as to vest in them the right to claim wages at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees holding the same post. All the concerned temporary employees 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 - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing and refiling of Special Leave Petition (Civil).
2. Entitlement of temporary employees to minimum of the regular pay-scale.
3. Application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees.
4. Relevance and interpretation of past judgments on 'equal pay for equal work'.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing and refiling Special Leave Petition (Civil):
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petitions (Civil), thereby granting leave in all special leave petitions.

2. Entitlement of temporary employees to minimum of the regular pay-scale:
The Supreme Court examined whether temporary employees, including daily-wage, ad-hoc, casual, and contractual employees, are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale along with dearness allowance. The full bench of the High Court had concluded that such temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale merely because their activities were similar to those of regular employees. However, the High Court carved out two exceptions for entitlement to the minimum of the regular pay-scale:
- Temporary employees appointed against regular sanctioned posts after a fair selection process.
- Temporary employees not appointed against regular sanctioned posts but continuously employed for 10 years.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's classification for differential treatment on wages unsustainable and set aside the decision.

3. Application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees if they perform similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees. The Court emphasized that the onus of proving parity in duties and responsibilities lies on the claimant. The Court also clarified that the principle applies irrespective of the department, provided the work and responsibilities are identical.

4. Relevance and interpretation of past judgments on 'equal pay for equal work':
The Supreme Court reviewed various past judgments to delineate the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Key points include:
- The principle applies to cases of unequal pay based on no or irrational classification.
- Persons holding the same rank/designation with dissimilar duties cannot claim equal pay.
- The principle applies if the duties and responsibilities are of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar.
- Temporary employees can claim minimum wages equal to regular employees if they perform similar duties.

The Court noted that the full bench of the High Court had misinterpreted the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006) 4 SCC 1, by conflating the issues of pay parity and regularization. The Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution Bench had distinguished between pay parity and regularization, affirming that temporary employees performing similar duties are entitled to the minimum wage of regular employees.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the full bench decision of the High Court and affirmed that temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of regular employees. The Court emphasized that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a constitutional right applicable to all employees, whether regular or temporary.