SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 532

Supreme Court of india
RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., U.P., Appellant
Versus
Its Workmen, Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2415 of 1989, D/-24-10-1989.

Advocates:
CHANDAN RAMAMURTHI, J.N.TIVARI, M.A.KRISHNAMURTHY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, MINAKSHI, S.JANANI, URMILA KAPUR

Headnote:

U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 4 – Promotion of Workmen - Tribunal came to find on material placed that junior 65 workmen promoted retrospectively did same work as those promoted by way of personal promotion from junior workmen were given higher wage from decision of Bank to give such higher wage to workmen promoted by way of personal promotion only from arbitrary and unjust principle of equal pay for equal work must prevail and inequality in wage – Held, Tribunals finding that both the groups were doing same type of work has rightly not been challenged by employer-bank as it is a pure finding of fact – If irrespective of classification of junior and senior groups same work was done by both principle of equal pay for equal work is definitely attracted and on finding of fact Tribunal was justified in applying the principle to give the same benefit to those who had been left out no justification in stand of employer-bank and challenge is without merit – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (II), Lucknow, dated 12-12-1986 in ADJ Case No. 1 of 1987. The following question was referred to the Tribunal under S. 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Whether denial of pay-scale of, Rs. 150- 250 w.e.f. 1-4-1971 and Rs. 250-450 w.e.f. 1-8-1972 to their workmen mentioned in the annexure is justified and legal. If not, to what compensation and relief the workmen concerned are entitled and with what date and with what details ?

2. The Tribunal came to find on material placed before it:-

".......... the fact remains that the junior 65 workmen promoted retrospectively did the same work as those promoted by way of personal promotion from 1971 to 1984 and if 65 junior workmen were given higher wage from 1971 to 1984, the decision of the Bank to give such higher wage to workmen promoted by way of personal promotion only from 1-8-1984 is arbitrary and unjust. The principle of equal pay for equal work must prevail and the inequality in wage from 1-4-1971 to 31-5-1984 cannot be allowed to stand."

3. The Tribunals finding that both the groups were doing the same type of work has rightly not been challenged by employer-bank as it is a pure finding of fact. If irrespective of classification of junior and senior groups, the same work was done by both, the principle of equal pay for equal work is definitely attracted and on the finding of fact the Tribunal was justified in applying the principle to give the same benefit to those who had been left out. We see. no justification in the stand of the employer-bank and the challenge is without merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this Court.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 495= 1989(4) JT 306 = 1990(1) B.C. 52

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top