Employees claiming equal pay for equal work must establish similarity of qualifications, duties, and functions, and may be estopped from claiming parity due to a settlement agreement.

1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Bench of this court in SWP No.357/1991 on 20.5.1990. The writ petitioners who are working as Surveyors is Salal Project sought parity of their pay with their counter parts working in Dhouliganga Hydre Electric Project (U.P) and Chamera Hydre Electric Project (H.P). The stand of the appellants before the writ court was fourfold:

1- That the projects were located in different parts of the country and geographically the employees of the appellant corporation working in different projects had to live in different conditions.

2- Even the conditions of service of the employees belonging to different projects were different.

3- That qualifications for appointment were also different.

4- That the writ petitioners were governed by a settlement which they entered into with the employer-appellant and their scales of pay were fixed in terms of that settlement. That being so, they were estopped from claiming parity with other persons.

2. The learned Single Bench while passing the judgment impugned has registered two of these objections taken by the appellants. Those are relating to places of work being different and the privity of settlement between the employer and the writ petitioners. The learned Single Bench after registering these two objections has referred to judgments laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 334, AIR 1985 SC 1124, AIR 1984 SC 1211 and AIR 1994 SC 265. Then the learned Single Bench concludes his judgment by the following sentence: -

In view of the above....................................

The petition is accordingly allowed.

3. The appellant-corporation was not contesting the proposition of law known as equal pay for equal work. There could be no denial to the law laid down by the Apex Court of this country in the judgments referred to. The grounds taken in the objections would per necessity require the writ court to return a finding quo such objections. The learned writ court unfortunately omitted to do so. Dumping the objections on the limb of oblivion, and deciding the writ petition on the analogy of some judgments, without taking into account the basic distinction of the case in hand (made clear in the objections) is equivalent to ignoring the basic precautions which law requires a court to take.

4. The essential features of a judgment under law are statement of facts, adjudication, reasoning and finality. We find the judgment to be lacking both in adjudication and reasoning. The learned Single Bench has not even touched the grounds taken in the objections, therefore, has omitted to adjudicate upon points in issue. He has also provided no reasoning for the judgment.

5. While laying down the procedure for delivering judgment, Rule 57 (3) of J&K High Court Rules, requires the judgment to contain a concise statement of facts, the points for determination, the decision thereupon and the reasons for such decision. This is the same requirement which Rule 4 of order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down for a judgment. In a case titled M/S Foments Resorts and Hotels Ltd. vs. Gustavo Ranatodacruz Pinto and others, reported in AIR 1985 SC 736, the court dealt with one ground only while so many issues were raised. The point was made clear and it was held that the court should deal with all the points raised and once that is not done the judgment leaves room for a defect. Their Lordships held as under: -

In a matter of this nature where several contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is scope of an appeal from the decision of the court, it is desirable as was observed by the privy council long time ago to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the court should when dealing with any matter dispose of all the points and not merely rest its decision on one single point.

6. The Supreme Court in Swarn Lata Vs. Harendra Kumar, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1167 held that a more order deciding the matter in disput