2006 Supreme(SC) 498

2006(6) Supreme 174
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Uttaranchal High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
U.P. State Sugar Corpn Ltd. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Sant Raj Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2003
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8237-8238 of 2003
And
Civil Appeal No. 2656 of 2006
[@ S.L.P. (C) No. 18327 of 2004]
Decided on 12-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker, Ashish Mohan, Vinay Garg, Avatar Singh Rawat, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia and Mrs. Nandini Gore (NP), Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Constitutional scheme for equal pay for equal work postulates for those who are equally placed in all respect and higher qualification can be treated to be a valid basis for classification of two categories of employees.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW — Doctrine of equal pay for equal work — Constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who were equally placed in all respects — Possession of a higher qualification would be a valid basis for classification of two categories of employees — Respondent was in Supervisory Grade ‘B’ service when factory where he was employed was acquired by State Corporation under U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 — He was continued to be paid in the pay scale prescribed by Sugar Wage Board even after the acquisition dt. 28-10-1984 — Pay revision was effected by Corporation whereby laboratory incharges who were earlier in pay scale of Rs. 550-1200 were put in pay-scale of Rs. 900-1770 but admissible to those who possessed B.Sc. Degree with Post Graduate Diploma of Sugar Technology — Two employees were placed in revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 meant for laboratory incharge in Corporation — Respondent filed writ for grant of scale of pay which was being paid to other two employees — High Court allowed the writ — Appeal — Question whether educational qualification could be considered to be a relevant criteria for payment of wages? Yes.

       Held : The doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as adumbrated under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. Possession of a higher qualification has all along been treated by this Court to be a valid basis for classification of two categories of employees.(Para 17)

       The First Respondent admittedly did not possess the requisite qualification. He merely claimed a higher scale of pay only because Shri B.P. Srivastava and Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla had been paid. It has not been disputed before us that the case of Shri Srivastava stood on different footing and his scale of pay had to be protected in terms of Section 16 of the Act. So far as Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla is concerned, we may proceed on the basis that the Corporation took a wrong decision. The said decision, however, was not questioned by the First Respondent before the High Court. No foundational facts had been placed before the High Court in relation thereto. We would not like to enter into the controversy as to whether his case could have been considered by the Committee or on what basis the Committee considered the cases of seven candidates and granted higher scales of pay to four candidates as the validity thereof is not in question. Assuming that the Corporation was wrong, the same by itself would not clothe the First Respondent even legal right to claim a higher scale of pay. On what basis the Selection Committee selected four employees out of the seven is not known. Three persons admittedly were not selected. If the plea put forward by the Respondent is accepted, these employees also would be entitled to the same scale of pay as given to the said Shri Shukla, although they have been found to be not fit therefor. Educational qualification was made the basis for a valid classification in the matter of payment of salary in a particular scale of pay by the Wage Board itself. Only in the year 1989, such a classification was obliterated. The First Respondent had been granted the benefit of the recommendations of the Third Wage Board also. It was a matter of policy decision for the Corporation to consider as to whether a particular category of employees should be taken outside the purview of the pay scales recommended by the Wage Board and place them in a higher scale of pay. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of Shri Dwivedi that only because no such qualification was prescribed at the time of recruitment, the classification made on that basis would be bad in law. Even otherwise the said contention is not correct as scale of pay was determined by the award of the Wage Board.(Para 23)