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

2016 Supreme(SC) 869

State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment outlines that equal pay for equal work extends to temporary/daily-wage/contractual employees when they perform identical duties and responsibilities as regular employees, with various qualifiers and conditions. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It distinguishes between pay parity (equal pay for equal work) and regularization/absorption in service, holding that parity can be granted without granting permanent status, and regularization is a separate issue. (!) (!) (!) - It sets out a non-exhaustive framework of parameters for determining parity, including identical duties, same quality and sensitivity, and rational nexus with differentiation, while recognizing legitimate classifications based on hierarchy, responsibilities, and selection merit. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope of the principle of equal pay for equal work as applied to temporary employees and daily-wage workers?


JUDGMENT :

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. Delay in filing and refiling Special Leave Petition (Civil)…. CC no. 15616 of 2011, and Special Leave Petition (Civil)…. CC no. 16434 of 2011 is condoned. Leave is granted in all special leave petitions.

2. A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (LPA no. 337 of 2003, decided on 7.1.2009), set aside, in an intra-court appeal, the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court, in Rajinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP no. 1536 of 1988, decided on 5.2.2003). In the above judgment, the learned single Judge had directed the State to pay to the writ petitioners (who were daily-wagers working as Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars etc.), minimum of the pay-scale, revised from time to time, with permissible allowances, as were being paid to similarly placed regular employees; arrears payable, were limited to a period of three years, prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. In sum and substance, the above mentioned division bench held, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, as was being












































































































































































































































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top