IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was wrong in directing equal pay to that of regularly employed staff to be given to the N.M.R./daily wage/casual workers on wrong application of principle "equal pay for equal work" considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 226-N.M.R. daily wage/casual workers filing writ petitions for equal pay at par with regularly employed staff and regularisation-High Court allowing on both grounds-Appeal against-Regularisation not seriously opposed but equal pay challenged as nature of duty and responsibility different in both types of employees-Whether "equal pay for equal work" was rightly applied by High Court in this case? (No)-Result-Appeals allowed-Case law discussed.
       Held : Though equal pay for equal work is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much as equal pay for unequal work will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, but also on the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do make a real and substantial difference. (Para 10)
       Held further : On a careful consideration of the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the principles firmly laid down in the well considered decision of Jasmer Singh (supra) squarely applied on all fours to the cases on hand and the respondents-workers would be entitled to only, apart from the regularization ordered for which the appellants have had no serious objections, the payment of minimum wage prescribed for such workers if it is more than what they were being paid and that the High Court was in serious error in directing that the respondents should be paid the same salary and allowances as were being paid to the regular employees holding similar posts. The respondent-workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff, for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. The fact that no materials were placed before the High Court as to the nature of duties of either categories should have been viewed as a disentitling factor so far as the workers are concerned and dissuaded the High Court from embarking upon an inquiry in the abstract and with no factual basis and not to empower the court to assume and presume equality in the absence of proof to the contra or of any unequal nature of the work performed by them. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. In the light of the decision directly on this issue rendered in Jasmer Singh (supra), we are unable to persuade ourselves to countenance the claim for minimum basic salary given in some unreported decisions brought to our notice which appear on the face of it to be certain directions given on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the same without an objective consideration of any principle of law. An order made to merely dispose of the case before court by issuing certain directions on the facts and for the purposes of the said case, cannot have the value or effect of any binding precedent and particularly in the teeth of the decision in Jasmer Singh s case (supra). (Para 12)
       Held finally : For all the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court are set aside insofar as the pay equal to that of the regular employed staff has been ordered to be given to the N.M.R./daily wager/casual workers, as indicated above, to which they will not be eligible or entitled, till they are regularized and taken as the permanent members of the establishment. For the period prior to such permanent status/regularization, they would be entitled to be paid only at the rate of the minimum wages prescribed or notified, if it is more than what they were being paid as ordered by this Court in Jasmer Singh s case (supra). There will be no order as to costs. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.-

Civil Appeal No. 7342 of 1993 :

The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers, have filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa for payment of remuneration on the same scale and basis paid to the regularly employed staff, claiming that they are discharging the same duties and functions, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work . They also sought for regularization of their services on the ground that they have been found working for considerably long period of time to justify their regularization. The appellant-State contested the claim by contending that the duties and responsibilities of the employees in the regular establishment were more onerous than that of the duties of N.M.R. workers, who are employed in various projects on daily basis and that their engagement also depended on the availability of the work in the different projects and consequently, they cannot claim any parity for equal pay. The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 10.3.1992 upheld the claim for regularization by observing that the said aspect of the matter was not seriously challenged. As for the claim for equal pay, the High Court was of the view that there was no reason to deny them the equal scales of pay and sustained their claim on par with those employed on regular basis with effect from 2.1.1990, namely, the date of filing of the Writ Petition, with a further direction that those who have served continuously for a period of five years by then should be regularized. Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed.

Civil Appeal No. 7343 of 1993 :

2. The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers in the Rengali Power Project, also claim for similar relief as in the other appeal, noticed supra. Overruling the objections of the appellants, while directing regularization of the workers, who have completed five years of continuous service as on the date of the order, the High Court also applying the principles laid down in the earlier cases, upheld in this case as well the right to get equal pay though in the matter of actual payment taking into account the negligible difference, a lump sum amount was directed to be made available to take care of the claim of all the respondents. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

Civil Appeal No. 751 of 1995 :

3. The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers employed in the various projects of the Irrigation Department of the State Government, sought for relief of regularization of their services and equal pay as that of the regularly employed staff. As in the other cases, the claims were sustained necessitating this appeal also by the State.

Civil Appeal Nos. 7047-4048 of 2002

(Arising out of S.L.P.[C] Nos. 16204-16205 of 1996) :

4. Delay condoned.

Special leave granted.

The respondents in these appeals are also the N.M.R. workers in the projects of the Irrigation Department and their claims for regularization as well as payment of salary on equal par with their counterparts in the regular establishment. This claim, applying the ratio of the earlier orders, was also sustained, resulting in the filing of these appeals by the State.

5. Heard Shri Jana Kalyan Das, Advocate, for the State of Orissa, and Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, for the appellant-Rengali Power Project. Mr. Bharat Sangal, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra and Mr. Y. Prabhakar Rao, Advocates, were heard for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance upon the decision reported in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer Singh & Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 77] in support of their stand, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents sought to place reliance upon the decisions reported in Chief Conservator of Forests & Anr. vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & Ors. [(1996) 2 SCC 293] and State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 118] in support of their stand to justify the relief granted by the High Court. Reliance was also placed upon orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1069

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court was wrong in directing equal pay to that of regularly employed staff to be given to the N.M.R./daily wage/casual workers on wrong application of principle "equal pay for equal work" considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was wrong in directing equal pay to that of regularly employed staff to be given to the N.M.R./daily wage/casual workers on wrong application of principle "equal pay for equal work" considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.