The doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' entitles employees performing identical work, duties, and responsibilities, while possessing the same requisite qualifications as regular counterparts, to at least the minimum of the corresponding regular pay scale, regardless of whether their appointment is daily-wage, ad-hoc, or contractual.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the petitioner and grant him regular pay scale of Accounts Assistant, by applying the doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ as he has been working full time against a vacant post and discharging duties to those of his regular counterparts since his appointment.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Assistant on daily wages with effect from 29.06.1994. The petitioner was allowed to continue in service and his tenure was extended from time to time as discernible from a letter dated 30.05.1996 (Annexure P-2). The respondent continues to extend the service of the petitioner on consolidated monthly remuneration. The respondent has extracted full time work of perennial nature from the petitioner, at par with his regular counterparts. The working hours, qualification, quality and quantity of the work of the petitioner are similar to that of his regular co-employees. The petitioner has been working to the satisfaction of his superiors and as such, he is entitled to equal pay for equal work in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.18835 of 1997 titled as ‘ Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana ’ decided on 17.04.1998. Further, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘ State of Haryana and another Vs. Ram Chander and another ’ in (1997) 5 SCC 253. Learned counsel also informs this Court that the petitioner was regularised during the pendency of the present petition. As such, the prayer of the petitioner regarding regularisation has been rendered infructuous. However, the second prayer of the petitioner regarding equal pay for equal work and counting his past service in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘ Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others ’ 2012 (3) SCT 362, deserves acceptance.

3. He further contends that the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualifications i.e. B.Com. and Hindi upto Matric. Since his initial appointment in the year 1994, he has rendered continuous service and is therefore he is entitled to the benefit of equal pay for equal work in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others ’ 2016 (4) SCT 641.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation is not in a position to deny the factual matrix of the case and the factum of his regularisation owing to his continuous service since the year 1994. However, he submits that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the job and was well aware of its terms and conditions. If the petitioner did not agree with the same, he could have decided to not accept the same. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Haryana and another Vs. Tilak Raj and others ’ (2003) 6 SCC 123 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has denied the parity for employment on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work to daily wage employees.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondent and submits that the reliance placed on Tilak Raj’s case (supra) is totally misplaced as the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In fact, the Hon’bl