SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Online)(SC) 80

SUPREME COURT
Ms. Shobha Dikshit, ACJ, Mr. J.C. Batra, ACJ
U. P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh
C. A. No. 1989 of 2002



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shobha Dikshit
For the Respondents: J.C. Batra

The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' mandates that contract workers performing similar tasks to permanent employees receive the same remuneration and conditions, with the Labour Commissioner responsible for determining work similarity.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 mandates equal pay for equal work for contract labour and directly employed workers performing similar duties. Facts: Appellants contested an application by the Union demanding equal pay for contract workers at the Anpara Thermal Power Project, challenging the Labour Commissioner's ruling that the contract workers deserved the same wages as permanent employees. Findings: The Labour Commissioner and the High Court dismissed the appeals, failing to adequately evaluate the evidence on work similarity.

Issues: The Court examined whether the contract labour performed the same work as regular employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the unsatisfactory evaluation by lower authorities on work similarity, highlighting that the Labour Commissioner did not consider critical job duties and responsibilities.

Result: The decision of the High Court and the Labour Commissioner is set aside, restoring the application's consideration for fair evaluation.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the wage disparity between contract and permanent workers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. position of the labour commissioner on pay equality. (Para 4 , 5)
3. equal pay mandates outlined in relevant rules. (Para 8 , 9)
4. evaluation of work similarity between contract and permanent employees. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court's ruling against prior decisions, calling for thorough reconsideration. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated August 3, 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby special appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment and order dated May 14, 1999 passed by the Single Judge has been dismissed. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the present appellants challenging the order dated October 24, 1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P.

2. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh (first respondent--hereinafter referred to as `Union',) made an application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975, (`Rules, 1975', for short) before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur praying therein that order be passed for payment of the same wages and other facilities in favour of contract labour working in second filtration plant of Anpara Thermal Power Project as are being paid by the employer to its employees in the main filtration plant. The Union set up the case that there are two filtration plants in Anpara Thermal Power Project; out of these plants in one plant (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as `main plant') regular employees are employed by the Electricity Board while in the other filtration plant, contract labour is being employed through contractors. In both filtration plants, the nature of work done by all these employees is same but the workers are paid their wages at different rates. Twenty- six workers, who have been directly appointed by the Electricity Board, are being paid regular pay scale with permissible allowances etc. while twenty-eight contract workers engaged through two contractors are paid at the rate of Rs. 61/- per day for unskilled work and Rs. 71.50 per day for semi-skilled work. The Union asserted that work in both the filtration plants is of the same nature and regular.

3. The present appellants resisted the application made by the Union on diverse grounds. That there are two water filtration plants in Anpara Thermal Power Project was admitted. However, it was submitted that main filtration plant is permanent having the capacity of treating three million gallons water per day while the second one is temporary having the capacity of treating three lac gallons per day. It was further submitted that from permanent filtration plant, supply is given to the entire colony and ITI passed/trained operators are being appointed by the department to run it; these appointments are made by the selection committee through selection procedure on the basis of eligibility and advertisement by the Board. The permanent plant runs 24 hours; it has six pumps and each has the capacity of 170 H.P. The chemicals are mixed at this plant mechanically and for its operation eligible and responsible employees are required. In the other filtration plant which is of temporary nature, employees are engaged through contractor for its operation. The temporary filtration plant is operated by skilled and semi-skilled employees who are engaged by contractors. These workers are paid wages at the rate declared by the labour department. The appellants set up a specific case before the Labour Commissioner that the work of the employees in the two filtration plants cannot be compared and, therefore, the employees working in the temporary filtration plant are not entitled to the same wages and facilities as are being paid to the regular employees working in the main filtration plant.

4. The Labour Commissioner, however, was not persuaded

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top