1. Employees of a local water authority seeking pay parity with employees of a state-wide water corporation based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 582
1997(4) Supreme 77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Paripoornan, S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karamchari Union & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3001 of 1986
Decided on 27-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants, G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Adv., A.K. Pandey, R.K. Khanna, Ms. Nasreem Alam, R.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents, R.C. Verma, R.B. Misra, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable where qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities is apparent.
The principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable where qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities is apparent.
Subject
Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work
Act Referred
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Principle of equal pay for equal work-Applicability-U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975-Section 3-U.P. Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan-Two distinct body corporates-Qualitative difference in duties and functions discharged by employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan-Some of functions are overlapping and of similar nature-Whether that by itself is decisive factor to hold that employees of Jal Sansthan are entitled for parity of pay scales with employees of Jal Nigam ?-(No)-Claim of equal pay for equal work on plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1) of Constitution not maintainable.
Held : From the scheme of the Act, the duties and functions assigned to the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan, are in many respects qualitatively different. Jal Nigam is a corporation fully controlled by the State and extending the jurisdiction all over the territory of Uttar Pradesh whereas the duties and functions of Jal Sansthans are restricted to local area and under the control of local bodies. From the material produced before us, we are constrained to say that there is qualitative difference in the duties and functions discharged by the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan and, therefore, the claim of equal pay for equal work on the plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution is without any foundation. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable where qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities is apparent. (Para 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for pay parity based on similar nature of work and internal resolutions, challenging the state government's refusal to sanction such parity. (Para 3 , 7 , 10 )
3. The court found qualitative differences in functions, responsibilities, and jurisdiction between the state-wide corporation and local authorities, making pay parity inapplicable. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
4. The principle of equal pay for equal work is inapplicable where there is a qualitative difference in functions, responsibilities, and organizational structures. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed and High Court judgment restored. (Para 11 )
6. When is the principle of equal pay for equal work applicable?
It applies when there is similarity in skill, effort, and responsibility performed under similar conditions. It requires qualitative commonality in duties and functions rather than mere similarity in the nature of work. (Para 8 )
7. How are differences in pay scales between different organizations evaluated?
Evaluation involves assessing the quality of work, educational or technical qualifications, experience, and seniority. Such evaluations are typically left to expert bodies and accepted unless vitiated by mala fides. (Para 8 )
8. Does a resolution by a local body to grant pay parity bind the State Government?
No, the State Government exercises supervisory power. If the government finds the claim for parity unsustainable based on legal principles, its refusal to sanction the resolution is not considered arbitrary. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the appellants challenging the correctness of the judgment dated April 18, 1995 rendered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The first respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh. The second respondent is Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Dehradun.
2. By way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellants challenged the legality and correctness of the communication/order dated 5th March, 1984 passed by the State Government. A further relief was sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondents not to implement the order dated 5th March, 1984 and instead to implement the resolution dated 4th June, 1983 passed by the second respondent.
3. The claim set out by the appellants in their writ petition was that they are entitled for the same pay scales which are given to the employees of Jal Nigam. In short, the appellants claim is based on the principle of equal pay for equal work and it arises under the following circumstances.
4. The State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1975 enacted the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (for short the Act ). Prior to the passing of this Act, it appears that there were two departments (1) Local Self Engineering Department which was entrusted with the work of formulations of various projects including proper water supply and sewerage service and (2) after installation of such projects, they used to be handed over to the Nagar Palikas and Municipal Boards for maintenance by their respective employees. From the record it further appears that the services and the pay scales in these two departments were not identical and the former was directly under the control of government whereas the latter was under the control of local bodies such as Maha Palikas or Municipal Boards.
5. The Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Act created two separate and distinct Corporations. U.P. Jal Nigam has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act being a body corporate having jurisdiction all over the territory of Uttar Pradesh. Jal Sansthans have been established under Section 18 having jurisdiction over the local area or any part thereof, of one or more local bodies as the State Government may specify in the notification. Jal Sansthan is again a body corporate and is deemed to be the local authority. Under Section 31 of the Act with effect from June 18, 1975, all properties, assets, liabilities and obligations of U.P. Local Self Government Engineering Department stood vested under Jal Nigam and consequently the employees of this department stood allocated and transferred to the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. From the scheme of the Act, it appears that Jal Nigam (corporation) is vested with the jurisdiction all over the State and is fully controlled by the State Government. As against this, Jal Sansthans which are established under Section 18 of the Act exercised their jurisdiction in respect of the local area or any part thereof, of one or more local bodies as specified by the State Government by notification. It is, therefore, quite apparent that Jal Nigam has got a wider jurisdiction than Jal Sansthan, although some of the duties and obligations are similar. The nature of work discharged by Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan is also to some extent similar but having regard to the scheme of the Act, it cannot be said that both of them discharged the same duties and functions. The distinction between them is again noticed from the provision contained in Section 16 of the Act wherein Jal Nigam is empowered to call for such reports and information from Jal Sansthan or local body whenever it may be considered necessary and after considering the reports and information may issue such directions to Jal Sansthan or local body as may be found necessary. Section 17 of the Act in fact confers supervisory powers on Jal Nigam. The duties and the work assigned to Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan, inter alia, provide for
