9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Equal pay for equal work for N.M.R. workers. 2. Regularization of services for N.M.R. workers. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Equal Pay for Equal Work for N.M.R. Workers: The respondents, who are N.M.R. workers, filed writ petitions seeking remuneration on the same scale and basis as regularly employed staff, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for equal work.' The appellant-State contested this claim, arguing that the duties and responsibilities of regular employees were more onerous than those of N.M.R. workers, who were employed on a daily basis depending on work availability in various projects. The High Court upheld the claim for equal pay, but the Supreme Court disagreed, citing the decision in *State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors.*, which stated that daily-rated workers cannot be treated on par with regular employees for wage purposes due to differences in qualifications, recruitment processes, and work conditions. The Supreme Court emphasized that equal pay depends not only on the nature and volume of work but also on qualitative differences such as reliability and responsibilities. The Court concluded that the respondents were entitled only to the minimum wage prescribed if it was more than what they were being paid, and not the same salary and allowances as regular employees. 2. Regularization of Services for N.M.R. Workers: The respondents also sought the regularization of their services, arguing that they had been working for a long period, justifying their regularization. The High Court upheld this claim, directing that workers who had served continuously for five years should be regularized. The Supreme Court agreed with the regularization aspect, noting that there were no serious objections from the appellants regarding this issue. The Court referenced the decision in *State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors.*, which suggested that casual laborers should be regularized as far as possible, subject to fulfilling qualifications and availability of work. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the right to regularization does not automatically entitle workers to equal pay with regular employees until they are formally regularized. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders to the extent that they directed equal pay for N.M.R. workers as regular employees. The Court ruled that N.M.R. workers are entitled to minimum wages prescribed if it is more than what they were being paid until they are regularized. Once regularized, they would be eligible for the same pay as regular employees. The Court emphasized that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires substantial similarity in duties and responsibilities, which was not established in this case.
|
