Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Secretary, Finance Department And Ors vs West Bengal Registration Service ... on 20 February, 1992
10. Initially,
particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being
applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on
other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of
caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work
had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It
has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay
structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive
and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been
emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be
ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and
cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary,
Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service
Association & Ors. and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana
Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association . Nevertheless, it will
not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because
determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the
Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure
and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by
arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the
doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be
canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no
dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and
responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but
they are treated differently merely because they belong to different
departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie
irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to
intervene.
State Bank Of India And Anr vs M.R. Ganesh Babu And Ors on 16 April, 2002
In
State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors. , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with the same principle,
opined that principle of equal pay is dependent upon the nature of
work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may
be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.
The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a
difference. It was held that the judgment of administrative
authorities, concerning the responsibilities which attach to the
post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would
be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at
bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by
the Court.
State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003
In
State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Tilak Raj & Ors. , it has been
observed that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not
always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing
and evaluating the work of different persons in different
organizations or even in the same organisation. It has been
reiterated that this is a concept which requires for its
applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of
employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of
employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been
emphasized that the problem about equal pay cannot be translated into
a mathematical formula.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005
13. Yet
again in a recent decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Charanjit Singh & Ors. , a Bench of three learned Judges, while
affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors. , Tilak Raj (supra),
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technlogy & Anr. Vs. Manoj
K. Mohanty and Government of W.B. Vs. Tarun Roy & Ors. has
reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law.
Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal
value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article
14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or
characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against
those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of
the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that
since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions
of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be
left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court
should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material
on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with
necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and
all other relevant factors are fulfilled.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996
13. Yet
again in a recent decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Charanjit Singh & Ors. , a Bench of three learned Judges, while
affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors. , Tilak Raj (supra),
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technlogy & Anr. Vs. Manoj
K. Mohanty and Government of W.B. Vs. Tarun Roy & Ors. has
reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law.
Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal
value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article
14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or
characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against
those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of
the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that
since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions
of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be
left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court
should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material
on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with
necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and
all other relevant factors are fulfilled.
Orissa University Of Agriculture & ... vs Manoj K. Mohanty on 17 April, 2003
13. Yet
again in a recent decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Charanjit Singh & Ors. , a Bench of three learned Judges, while
affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors. , Tilak Raj (supra),
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technlogy & Anr. Vs. Manoj
K. Mohanty and Government of W.B. Vs. Tarun Roy & Ors. has
reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law.
Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal
value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article
14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or
characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against
those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of
the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that
since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions
of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be
left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court
should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material
on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with
necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and
all other relevant factors are fulfilled.
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
13. Yet
again in a recent decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Charanjit Singh & Ors. , a Bench of three learned Judges, while
affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors. , Tilak Raj (supra),
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technlogy & Anr. Vs. Manoj
K. Mohanty and Government of W.B. Vs. Tarun Roy & Ors. has
reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law.
Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal
value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article
14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or
characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against
those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of
the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that
since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions
of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be
left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court
should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material
on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with
necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and
all other relevant factors are fulfilled.