Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Section 32 in The Pharmacy Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in The Pharmacy Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another vs Pramod Bhartiya And Others on 8 October, 1992
9. It was then urged on behalf of the petitioners that on
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' they were entitled
to pay scale of Rs 330-560. It was pointed out that they
have been performing the same nature of work, which was
being performed by other Pharmacists Grade-B who have been
given the scale of Rs 330-560. The nature of work may be
more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on
academic qualification or experience which justifies
classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner.
Classification made by a body of experts after full study
and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for
strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be
unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups
excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' to them. The principle of 'equal pay for equal
work' has been examined in State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiyal
by this Court. Before any direction is issued by the Court,
the claimants have to establish that there was no reasonable
basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of
wages or salary. Then only it can be held that there has
been a discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
Section 30 in The Pharmacy Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Pharmacy Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1