Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, JJ.
Vice Chancellor – Appellant
Versus
Amulaben Narendrabhai Nimavat & others – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 461 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8816 of 2020
Decided on : 17-04-2023
Regularization - Service - Latest Patent - [Clause 15] - [Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(c), Section 25F] - The court discussed the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and its interpretations as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh and others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. The court also referred to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahuva Municipality versus Maheshbhai Jinabhai Sarvaiya passed in the LPA No.1036 of 2016. The court found that the learned Single Judge rightly applied the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', thereby issuing direction to the present appellant to pay to the respondent no.1 – original petitioner the salary in the minimum of the pay scale as paid to the regularly appointed employees on the post of Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya. The court dismissed the appeal in limine.
Fact of the Case:
The original petitioner was appointed as Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya by the present appellant. Her services were terminated without following the due procedure, leading to an industrial dispute. The Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the present appellant to reinstate the petitioner on her original post with continuity in service. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition and directed the present appellant to pay the petitioner salary in the minimum of the pay scale as paid to the regularly appointed employees on the post of Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge rightly applied the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', thereby issuing direction to the present appellant to pay to the respondent no.1 – original petitioner the salary in the minimum of the pay scale as paid to the regularly appointed employees on the post of Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya. The court dismissed the appeal in limine.
Issues: Regularization of service, application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', interpretation of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that the learned Single Judge rightly issued the direction to pay the petitioner salary in the minimum of the pay scale as paid to the regularly appointed employees on the post of Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. This appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Latest Patent against the order dated 5.7.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8816 of 2020 partly allowing the petition filed by the private respondent - original petitioner.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr Rutviz Oza assisted by learned advocate Mr.Mitrajeet Shukla for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Chintan Desai for the respondent no.1 - original petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Kurven Desai for the respondents nos.2 and 3.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Oza appearing for the appellant submitted that the original petitioner was appointed as Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya by the original respondent no.3, i.e. the present appellant, on 7.9.1994. Her services came to be terminated on 30.11.2002. It is alleged by the original petitioner that her services were terminated without following the due procedure and, therefore, she raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the concerned Labour Court and registered as Reference (LCJ) No.13 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Jamnagar. It is submitted that the Labour Court, Jamnagar, passed an award on 29.6.2013, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the present appellant to reinstate the petitioner on her original post with continuity in service, however, without back wages.
4. It is submitted, at this stage, that the petitioner filed the captioned petition before this Court, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(B) Pending hearing and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the present respondent No.3 to not to change the service conditions of the present petitioner.
(C) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further order which deems to fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”
5. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge party allowed the said petition and thereby did not grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner for regularization, however, the learned Single Judge directed the present appellant to pay to the petitioner salary in the minimum of the pay scale as paid to the regularly appointed employees on the post of Kitchen Worker/ Kitchen Aaya.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Oza has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that on one hand the learned Single Judge has not entertained the petition filed by the petitioner with regard to the relief prayed for by the petitioner for regularization of service, and on the other hand, learned Single Judge has issued impugned direction to pay salary in the minimum of the pay scale. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner shall also be entitled to other emoluments like D.A., etc. as has been paid to the regularly appointed employees. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned direction issued by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set-aside. Learned advocate Mr.Oza, at this stage, would submit that it was the case of the present appellant before the learned Single Judge that the original petitioner was not appointed after following the due procedure as per the recruitment rules and she was not qualified as per the requirement rules. It is further submitted that the original petitioner has not been appointed on t
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post without any increments or allowances, based on the princ....
The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable if the work component is the same, and workers doing the same work cannot be paid less than others similarly situated.
For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to ....
Equal pay for equal work applies to absorbed employees from merged entities performing identical duties as regulars, entitling pay scale parity, benefits, arrears despite initial lump sum irregular a....
Temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post, without any increments or allowances, as per the judgments of the Supreme Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the applicability of the Circular to part-time employees working for less than four hours.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
