Important point
Application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, the accuracy required, dexterity that job may entail may differ from job to job and thus it could not be judged by mere volume of work.

Headnote:(i) Labour Law—Claim by daily wagers for minimum wages payable under the pay-scale of regular class IV employees—Respondents were appointed daily wagers as ledger clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-cum chowkidar, fitters, petrol men, surveyors etc.—High Court allowing writ petition held respondents entitled to be given minimum wages in the scale payable to regular class IV employees from date of filing of respective petitions—Appeal—Doctrine of equal pay for equal work—Application of the principle required consideration of various dimensions of a given job—Applicability of principle depended not only on nature or volume of work but also on qualitative difference in reliability and responsibilities also—Doctrine was not an abstract doctrine and was capable of being enforced in Court of law—Normally applicability of doctrine must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and writ Court should not lightly interfere—High Court proceeded on basis that doctrine of equal pay for equal work applied without examining all relevant factors—Impugned judgments were liable to be set aside and matter to be remanded.
       Held : Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the 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. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regards. In any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court, is on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective Writ Petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors. As stated above in all these cases the High Court has followed a Full Bench decision of that Court. The Full Bench has also observed that the essential ingredient is similarity. This would be correct. However, at one stage the Full Bench observes that even if some dispute is raised. That would be wrong law. In each case the Court must satisfy itself that the burden of proving that the work and conditions are equal is discharged by the aggrieved employee. We, therefore, set aside all the impugned Judgments and remit all these matters back to the High Court. The High Court shall now examine each case and see whether the necessary averments are there. It shall then consider all relevant facts, as enumerated above, and decide whether everything is identical and equal. If the High Court feels that there is a dispute which would necessitate extensive evidence it may direct that party to raise an appropriate dispute where such questions could be dealt with and which, in fact, would be the appropriate proceedings. (Paras 17 to 19)
       (ii) Labour Law—Doctrine of equal pay for equal work—Persons employed on contract cannot claim equal pay on basis of equal pay for equal work. (Paras 20 to 22)

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 employee from the date of the filing of the respective Petition.

2. One other fact which must be mentioned is that, whilst these Appeals were pending before this Court, all the Respondents have been regularized. From the date of their regularization they being paid pay-scales as payable to a regular Class IV employee. The question therefore is only whether the directions of the High Court to pay the minimum wage in the scale payable to a Class IV employee, from the date of their filing the respective Petition, is required to be interfered with.

3. When these Appeals came up for hearing on 23rd August, 2004 this Court referred the matters to a larger Bench for consideration by passing the following Order:

“The respondents in all these appeals were initially appointed as Ledger-clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-cum-chowkidars, fitters, petrol man, surveyor, drivers etc. on daily wages or on contractual basis. They were all regularized with effect from October, 2003 and they have been getting the minimum payable under the regular pay scale of Class-IV employees from the date of their regularization. In the writ petitions filed by these respondents before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the Division Bench directed that these respondents shall be paid the minimum salary and dearness allowances payable to their counter parts working on regular basis. The question for consideration before this Court, in the present set of cases, is that whether these respondents are entitled to get the minimum scale of pay from the date of their appointment as daily wagers/casual employees or they are entitled to get the minimum salary in the scale of pay from the date of their regularization.

Learned counsel for the State contended that they are entitled to get minimum of the scale of pay only from the date of regularization whereas the respondents contended that applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” they are entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale from the date of their employment as casual employees or daily wagers. The respondents, in this connection, relied on the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1986 SC P. 584, Surinder Singh & Anr. vs. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. & Ors. wherein the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the Central Public Works Department were given salary and allowances which were 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. V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1314

Important pointApplication of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, the accuracy required, dexterity that job may entail may differ from job to job and thus it could not be judged by mere volume of work.

Cases Referred (14)

Important point
Application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, the accuracy required, dexterity that job may entail may differ from job to job and thus it could not be judged by mere volume of work.