The 'equal pay for equal work' principle applies to all employees, including outsourced or temporary staff, provided they demonstrate functional equivalence in duties and responsibilities with regular employees. An employer cannot use the mode of recruitment as a premise to deny fair wages for equal work.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO EXTEND EQUAL PAY FOR THE PETITIONERS ON PAR WITH THAT OF THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES ON THE PRINCIPLE OF “EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK” WITH ALL THE ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners seek for following relief's:

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to extend equal pay for the petitioners on par with that of the regular employees on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” with all the arrears from the date of the appointment of the petitioners;

(b) Grant such other relief this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners were appointed as drivers in the Mysore City Corporation and have been working there since 2013 onwards. The petitioners have submitted their representations during the year 2021 to 2023 seeking payment of minimum pay scale under the principle/doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 though they were appointed by an Outsourcing Agency. In order to substantiate their contention that they were working under respondent No.5-Corporation, various documents have been produced by them along with the writ petition as well as rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by respondent No.5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their representations seeking the benefit of the principle/doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” have not been considered. Hence, they are before this Court by way of the present petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Corporation would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that the petitioners were not the employees of respondent No.5-Corporation and had been appointed through an Outsourcing Agency, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

As stated supra, the petitioners have filed rejoinder to the aforesaid statement of objections and produced various documents including biometric attendance maintained by respondent No.5- Corporation and other records to contend that the petitioners have been working under respondent No.5-Corporation.

In Jagjit Singh's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:

“42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them were against the same post for which a higher pay scale was being allowed in other government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:

42.1. The “onus of proof” of parity