9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ga, Sureshta Bagga, Hemantika Wahi, Ajay Kumar Agrawal, J.P. Dhanda, Ranbir Singh Yadav, B.S. Mor, Gian Singh, Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Ajay Choudhary, R.S. Dwivedi, P.K. Singh, Ajay Bansal, Pankaj Kumar, Indu Malhotra, C.K. Sucharita, Ugra Shankar Prasad, B.S. Chahar, Jyoti Chahar, Vinay Garg, Sudhir Nandrajog, Sarda Devi and Prem Malhotra, Advs JUDGMENT S. N. VARIAVA, J. Delay condoned. Special leave granted in S. L. Ps. 1) In all these Appeals, the Respondents were daily wagers who were appointed as ledger clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-cum-chowkidar, fitters, petrol men, surveyors etc. All of them claimed the minimum wages payable under the pay-scale of regular Class IV employees from the date of their appointments. The question whether or not these persons were entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of a regular Class IV employee was referred to a Full Bench for consideration. The Full Bench gave its decision. Following the Full Bench decision all these Writ Petitions have been disposed off with short Orders. In all these cases the Respondents have been directed to be given the minimum of the wages in the scale payable to a regular Class IV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re payable to the regular employees from the date on which they were employed but in series of other decisions rendered by this Court reported in 1996 (11) SCC p.77, State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh Ors. in paras 9 and 10 it was held that the daily rated workmen who were to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen as prescribed and not in the pay scale applicable to similar employees working on regular service. Reliance was also placed on earlier decisions in Harbans Lal Vs. State of H.P. 1989 (4) SCC p.459. A similar view was taken by this Court in Orissa University of Agriculture Technology Anr. Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, 2003 (5) SCC P.188 AND Ghaziabad Development Authority Ors. Vs. Vikram Chaudhary Ors., 1995 (5) SCC p.210 and also in State of Haryana Anr. Vs. Tilar Raj Ors., 2003 (6) SCC p.123. It appears that there is a conflict of decision and earlier decision in Surinder Singh Anr. Vs. Engineer-in- Chief, C.P.W.D. Ors., [AIR 1986 SC 584] was not referred to in later decisions. Therefore, in our view, these cases have to be considered by a larger bench so that the conflict may be resolved. The registry is requested to place these matters b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there should be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for equal work of equal value ....... It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. 5) In Dhirendra Chamoli s case this Court then held that the Central Government like all organs of a State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. On this basis, this Court directed the Government to pay to the Petitioners therein and all other daily wagers the same salary and allowances as were paid to regular and permanent employees. To be immediately noted that in this case, there is no discussion as to whether or not the concerned employees were similarly situated with the regular employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in this regard relating to the nature of the job, in the absence of material to the contrary, should be accepted. The case of Harbans Lal v. State of H.P. [(1989) 4 SCC 459 was referred to with approval. In that case it was held that a mere nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman was not enough to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same work as another carpenter in regular service. In that case, carpenters employed by the Himachal Pradesh Handicraft Corporation on daily wages sought parity of wages with carpenters in regular service. This Court negatived this contention, holding that a comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management or even in the establishments in different locations though owned by the same management. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of equal pay for equal work requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed. 7) In the case of State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 123, it has been held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. It has been held that there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations or even in the same organization. It has been held that this is a concept which requires, for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been held that the problem about equal pay cannot be translated into a mathematical formula. It was further held as follows: 11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently. In State of Jammu Kashmir v. Trilok Nath Khosa AIR 1974 SC 1 : 1974 (1) SCC 19 : 1974-I-LLJ-121, this Court held : Educational qualifications have been recognized by this Court as a safe criterion for determining the validity of classification. The Post of Operator-cum-Mechanic and Sub-Assistant Engineers are technical posts. As noticed hereinbefore, whereas for the posts of Operator-cum-Mechanic the qualification of school final examination and a certificate obtained from the Industrial Training institute would be sufficient; for the posts of Sub-Assistant Engineer the person must have a diploma from a polytechnic apart from being a matriculate. It is also not in dispute that such qualification was prescribed as far back as in the year 1971 and the respondents herein were appointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition extracted above, nothing is stated as regards the nature of work, responsibilities attached to the respondent without comparing to the regularly recruited Junior Assistants. It cannot be disputed that there was neither necessary averments in the writ petition nor any material was placed before the High Court so as to consider the application of principle of equal pay for equal work . This Court further noticed at p. 971 of LLJ : 11. In the absence of material relating to other comparable employees as to the qualifications, method of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in performance of job, training required, responsibilities undertaken and other facilities in addition to pay scales, the learned single Judge was right when he stated in the order that in the absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief to the respondent. ........ 12. Before giving such direction, the High Court also did not keep in mind as to what would be its implications and impact on the other employees working in the appellant- University. From the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, it is clear that no details were given and no mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal which is pending before the Division Bench from the judgment and order dated January 20, 1989 passed in Nemai Chand Ghosh s case (supra). The said order, therefore, did not attain finality. In the aforementioned situation, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court manifestly erred in refusing to consider the contentions of the appellant on their own merit, particularly, when the question as regard difference in the grant of scale of pay on the ground of different educational qualification stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in Debdas Kumar s case (supra). If the judgment of Debdas Kumar s case (supra) is to be followed a finding of fact was required to be arrived at that they are similarly situated to the case of Debdas Kumar (supra) which in turn would mean that they are also holders of diploma in engineering. They admittedly, being not, the contention of the appellants could not be rejected, nonfiling of an appeal, in any event, would not be a ground for refusing to consider a matter on its own merits State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995 (4) SCC 683. In State of Bihar v. Ramdeo Yadav AIR 1996 SC 3135 : 1996 (3) SCC 493 wherein this Court noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 595, it was noted that the concerned Ledger Clerks were found to have been given similar work as regular Ledger Clerks. This Court without any further discussion or consideration held that concerned Ledger Clerks would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of Ledger Clerks. It was directed that this be paid for a period of three years prior to the filing of the Writ Petition. It seems that attention of this Court was not brought to the earlier authorities, which lay down when the principle of equal pay for equal work can apply. Also we are unable to accept the finding that for similar work the principle of equal pay applies. Equal pay can only be given for equal work of equal value. 14) In the case of Sandeep Kumar Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh Ors., reported in (1993) Supp (1) SCC 525, regularisation was refused but equal pay was granted on the admitted position that the concerned workmen were doing the same work. 15) In the case of Bhagwan Dass Ors. vs State of Haryana Ors., reported in (1987) 4 SCC 634, this Court held that if the duties and functions of the temporary appointees and regular employees are similar there cannot be discrimination in pay mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of equal pay for equal work requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son is employed under a contract, it is the contract which will govern the terms and conditions of service. In the case of State of Haryana vs Surinder Kumar Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 633, persons employed on contract basis claimed equal pay as regular workers on the footing that their posts were interchangeable. It was held that these persons had no right to the regular posts until they are duly selected and appointed. It was held that they were not entitled to the same pay as regular employees by claiming that they are discharging same duties. It was held that the very object of selection is to test eligibility and then to make appointment in accordance with rules. It was held that the Respondents had not been recruited in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment. 21) In the case of Union of India Ors. vs K. V. Baby Anr., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 252, the question was whether Commission Bearers/Vendors are entitled to the same salary as regular employees. It was held that their appointment and mode of selection, their qualifications cannot be compared with regular employees. It was held that by their very nature of employment they cannot be equated with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
