Back
1992 JLJ 721
(SUPREME COURT)
Kuldip Singh, N.M. Kasliwal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
State of M.P. and another v. Pramod Bhartiya and others
C.A. No. 4049 of 1992; Decided on 8.10.1992.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 16 (1), 39 (d) and 14 -- equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16(1) -- necessarily means and involves equal pay for equal work -- rule is enforceable in Court of Law. 1982 (1) SCC 618 relied on. [Para 1
(3) Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 -- S (2) (h) -- definition of "same work or work of a similar nature" -- it gives statutory shape to the rule of "equal pay for equal work both for men and women" hence can be applied to the cases even if those are not governed under the Act -- stress is upon the similarity of skill, efforts and responsibility. [Para 12
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 and 16 (1) -- lecturers employed in Higher Secondary Schools demanding equal pay as paid to non-technical lecturers in technical schools -- they have to prove similarity in duties, responsibilities and functions.
The quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. The respondents (original petitioners) have failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those of the non-technical lecturers in Technical Colleges. They have also failed to establish that the distinction between their scale of pay and that of non-technical lecturers working in Technical Schools is either irrational and that it has no basis, or that it is vitiated by malafides, either in law or in fact. It must be remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be. This burden the original petitioners (respondents herein) have failed to discharge. 1988 (3) SCC 91, 1984 (2) SCC 141, 1985 Supp. SCC 94, 1986 (1) SCC 637,639 and AIR 1990 SC 334 discussed. [Para 13
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14] 16 ¼1½ rFkk 39 ¼?k½ && **leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru** && vuq- 14 esa izfr"Bkfir lekurk ds fl)kar esa varfufgZr gS && D;ksafd vuq- 39 ¼?k½ esa *iq:"kksa vkSj fL=;ksa nksuksa dk leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru** dk mYys[k gS] dsoy bl dkj.k mldk vuq- 14 dk ,d Hkkx gksuk lekIr ugha gks tkrkA ¿ iSjk 1À ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 16 ¼1½] 39 ¼?k½ rFkk 14 && vuq- 16 ¼1½ }kjk izfrHkwr volj dh lerk && vko‘;d :i ls bldk vFkZ vkSj blesa varoZfyr gS fd leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru fu;e U;k;y;ksa esa izorZuh; gSA 1982 ¼1½ ,l lh lh 618 voyafcr ¿ iSjk 1À ¼3½ Hkkjr ikfjJfed vf/kfu;e] 1976 && /kkjk 2 ¼t½ && *,d gh dke ;k leku iz—fr dk dke** dh ifjHkk"kk && ;g **iq:"kksa vkSj fL=;ksa nksuksa dk leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru** ds fu;e dks dkuwuh :i nsrh gS vr% bu ekeysa ij Hkh ykxw gksxh tks bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fofu;fer ugha gksrs gSa && cy dkS‘ky] iz;Ru vkSj mRrjnkf;Ro ij gSA ¿ iSjk 1À ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 rFkk 16 ¼1½ mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fu;ksftr O;k[;krkvksa }kjk rduhdh egkfo|ky;ksa esa xSj rduhdh O;k[;krkvksa dks fn, tk jgs osru ds lkeu osru dh ek¡x && mUgs drZO;ksa] mRrjnkf;Roksa rFkk —R;ksa dh le:irk lkfcr djuk gksxhA dk;Z dk xq.k] in ds vuqlkj fHkUu&fHkUu gks ldrk gSA ;g laLFkk ds vuqlkj fHkUu&fHkUu gks ldrk gSA ge bl okLrfodrk dh mis{kk ugha dj ldrsA ;g fo"k; /kkj.kk dk u gks dj lcwr dk gSA izR;FkhZx.k ¼ewy ;kphx.k½ ;g LFkkfir djus esa vlQy jgs gSa fd muds drZO; mRrjknkf;Ro vkSj —R; rduhdh egkfo|ky;ksa ds xSj rduhdh O;k[;krkvksa ds le:i gSA os ;g LFkkfir djus esa Hkh vlQy jgs gS fd muds vkSj rduhdh fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr xSj rduhdh O;k[;krkvksa ds osrueku esa fHkn ;k rks foosdh gS vkSj ;g fdmldk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS vFkok ;g fof/k vFkok rF;ks esa nqHkkZo ls nwf"kr gSA ;g Lej.k j[kuk vko‘;d gS fd D;ksafd leku osru ds vfHkokd~ ijh{k.k vuq- 14 ds funs‘k ls fd;k tkuk gksrk gS] mudk leku osru dk vf/kdkj vFkok foHksn dk vfHkokd~ LFkkfir djus dk Hkkj ;kphx.k ij gSA ewy ;kphx.k ¼;gk¡ izR;FkhZx.k½ ;g Hkkj fuoZgu djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA 1988 ¼3½ ,l lh lh 91] 1984 ¼2½ ,l lh lh 141] 1985 lIyheasV ,l lh lh 94] 1986 ¼1½ ,l lh lh 637] 639 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lhg 334 foosfprA ¿ iSjk 13À
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. -- 1. Equal pay for equal work, it is self evident, is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14, it flows from it. Because clauses (d) of Article 39 spoke of "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" it did not cease to be a part of Article 14. To say that the said rule having been stated as a directive principle of State policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law is to indulge in sophistry. Parts IV and III of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. They are complementary to each other. The rule is as much a part of Article 14 as it is of clause (1) of Article 16. Equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16 (1) necessarily means and involves equal pay for equal work. It means equally that it is neither a mechanical rule nor does it mean geometrical equality. The concept of reasonable classification and all other Rules evolved with respect to Articles 14 and 16 (1) come into play wherever complaint of infraction of this Rule falls for consideration. This is the principle affirmed in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors [1982 (1) SCC 618] as well as in the subsequent decisions of this Court. It would be instructive to notice a few of them.
2. In Ralldhir Singh, Chinnappa Reddy J. speaking for the Bench of three learned judges said:
"We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely. because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the power, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same .... construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."
3. The above principle was followed and applied in P.K. Ramachandra lyer [1984 (2) SCC ]411 Sa vita (1985 Suppl. SCC 94), Dhirendra Chamoli [1986 (1) SCC 637], Suriendra Singh (1986 (1) SCC 639), Jaipal [1988 (3) SCC 354] and in Federation of all India Customs and Excise Stenographers v. Union of India [1988 (3) SCC 91). While it is not necessary to refer to all the decisions, a brief reference to the decision last-mentioned may be in order. S.Mukharji, J. speaking for himself and R.S. Pathak, C.J. had this to say about the content of the rule :
"In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact. In the light of the averments made in the facts mentioned before, it is not possible to say that the differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought for to be achieved"
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
