Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The first nine workmen ventilated two grievances in the aforementioned Statement of Claim. The first grievance was against the disbursal, to them, of only minimum wages, till they were regularized on 25th September 1996, whereas their counterparts, who had been appointed as regular LDCs, were being paid regular salary of Rs 260-400/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs 950-1500/-w.e.f. 1st January 1986, along with other benefits. This, the said nine workmen contended, was impermissible in law, as they were discharging the same duties as those discharged by the regularly appointed LDCs. They, therefore, pressed into service, in their aid, the hallowed "equal pay for equal work" principle. The second grievance, voiced by the said nine workmen, was against their regularization w.e.f. 25th September 1996, after they had qualified the written test, and typing test which, were held on 28thJuly 1996 and 24th August 1996 respectively. The workmen contended that they were entitled to be regularized, in the regular pay scale of LDCs, w.e.f. the dates of their initial appointment, as the posts against which they had been appointed were permanent and regular. It was emphasized that they had been working against vacant posts of LDC since their appointment. Their non-regularization, it was therefore contended, would amount to an unfair labour practice, under Section 2 (ra) read with S. No. 10 of the Vth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and would also infract Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. They further contended, in this connection, that the conducting of the written test on 28 th July 1996 and the typing test on 24th August 1996 was illegal, and was also contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 SCC (L & S) 174, keeping in view the fact that they had worked as LDCs for 13 to 14 years. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as also the Model Standing Orders issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, were also invoked. They also stressed the fact that they had, to their credit, 90 days of continuous employment, which entitled them to the status of permanent LDCs w.e.f. the dates of their initial appointment, under the aforementioned Model Standing Orders, as well as the fact that they were entitled to regularization as they had completed 240 days of continuous employment in a calendar year.

14. On the issue of the entitlement, of the respondent-workmen, to wages as were being paid to regularly appointed LDCs, from the dates of their initial appointment till 25th September 1996, the impugned award upholds the said claim, in respect of all eleven workmen. In so holding, the learned Tribunal relies on the admitted position that the respondent-workmen were, in fact, appointed as LDCs, and worked as LDCs, discharging the same duties as were being discharged by regularly appointed LDCs, from the dates of their initial appointment. Such, it was noted, was the situation existing prior to, as well as after, 25th September 1996. The learned Tribunal, therefore, opined that there was no justification to deny, to the respondent-workmen, the regular pay of LDCs, prior to 25th September 1996, where such pay had, in fact, been disbursed to them after 25th February 1996. The fact that the first nine workmen passed the typing test only on 25th September 1996, it was held could not be a justification therefor, as there was no justification for the petitioner not to hold the written test and typing test for twelve years after the workmen had initially been appointed as LDCs. Proceeding on the above reasoning, the learned Tribunal held that, the respondent-workmen, doing the same work as was being done by the regularly appointed LDCs, could not be paid merely minimum wages, while regularly appointed LDCs were being disbursed, the prescribed salary of Rs.950-1500/-. The fact that the work, conduct and efficiency of the respondent-workmen had never been called into question, by the petitioner, was also noticed in this regard.

42.13 The parity in pay, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of W.B. v. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn. [State of W.B. v. W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn., (2010) 5 SCC 225 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] ).

51.1 It is apparent that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh [State of Punjabv. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696] did hold that the determination rendered in para 55 of the judgment in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , was in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. But the above observation does not lead to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable to temporary employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary employees. The Constitution Bench would, in the above situation, be deemed to have concluded that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular employee discharging the same duties. It needs to be noticed that on the subject of pay parity, the findings recorded by this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , were limited to the conclusions recorded in para 55 thereof (which we have dealt with above, while dealing with the case law on the principle of "equal pay for equal work")."