.JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

INDEX

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REGULAR SECOND APPEAL

1. The plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 15.03.1996 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit for recovery of Rs.39072.49 paise, as arrears of salary, filed by the plaintiff-present appellant was dismissed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 04.05.1998 vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff present appellant against the said judgment was also dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two arguments to challenge the judgments of the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court. The first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that vide letter dated 14.07.1987 signed by Balwant Singh, Principal, Guru Nanak National College, Nakodar, the present appellant, while being appointed on adhoc basis w.e.f. 07.09.1987, was specifically held entitled to be paid according to the University / Punjab Government Rules. It is submitted that thus, the appellant was entitled to be paid salary as was being paid to the regular employees and not consolidated salary which had been paid to him by the defendants-respondents. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the present appellant is entitled to 'equal pay for equal work' and he should have been given the same salary as was being paid to the regular employees on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported as (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148. It is submitted that thus, the judgments of the trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFEND ANTS-RESPONDENTS

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgments of the trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and both the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are meritless and deserve to be rejected. It is submitted that the letter dated 14.07.1987 (Ex.P4) is a predated document, which fact has been admitted by PW-3 Balwant Singh, who is stated to be the author of the said letter. It is further submitted that even when the said letter Ex.P4 is read along with the other letters Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 as well as the prior letters / documents exhibited by the plaintiff himself, it is apparent that the said letter Ex.P4 is pre-dated and thus, no reliance can be placed upon the same. With respect to the second argument raised on behalf of the plaintiff, it is argued that a perusal of the plaint would show that no basis, much less, pleadings are in the plaint to remotely make out a case for equal pay for equal work. It is submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) would rather go against the plaintiff-appellant, as in the plaint, the plaintiff has not even averred the basic parameters which are required to be averred to raise the claim of equal pay for equal work.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book as well as record of the trial Court and is of the opinion that the judgments of the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the present appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant deserves to be dismissed.

5.