You are on page 1of 17

CHAPTER 3

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

1. Randhir Singh v. Union of I ndia
1


Summary of Material Facts:

1. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Delhi Police Force.
2. After his discharge from the army question of his employment as a driver in Delhi Police
Force was considered, he was asked to appear for a test of proficiency in driving, directed to
produce a Civil Heavy Transport Driving Licence, selected thereafter as a driver in Delhi Police
Force under the category "Employment of Ex- serviceman in Delhi Police as N.T. Driver
(Constable). He was designated as Constable.
3. The petitioner and other drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and
duties as other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government.

4. Pay scale that the petitioner and the other drivers in the Delhi Police Force is less than the pay
scale of the other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government.
5. The petitioner and other driver constables made a representation to the authorities that their
case was omitted to be considered separately by the Third Pay Commission and that their pay
scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments.
6. As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with success, the present application has
been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Question before the Court:
Whether or not the petitioner and the other drivers in the Delhi Police Force are entitled to the
same pay as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments?


1

Judgment of the Court:
Petition was allowed.

Reasons for the Judgment:

Art. 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a
Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means
equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes.

Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Art. 39(d), the principle 'Equal
pay for Equal work' is deducible from those Article and may be properly applied to cases of
unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though these drawing
the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.


Most appropriate Reason:

Where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding
identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they
belong to different departments.


Ratio:

Persons holding identical posts should not be treated differently, in the matter of their pay,
merely because they belong to different departments”







2.U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Aziz Ahmad
2



Summary of Material Facts:

1. Shri Aziz Ahmad, the workman, respondent herein was appointed as coolie in the service of
the appellant Board with effect from 1.4.1969 in the pay scale of Rs. 55-90.
2. Thereafter he appeared before the Selection Committee No. 2 for being promoted to the post
of Boiler Overhauling Mechanic. In the said selection, by order dated 13.9.1977 the respondent
was declared successful consequent upon which he was offered the post of Boiler Overhauling
Mechanic in the then pay scale of Rs. 80-145.
3. The aforesaid pay scale, however, has been revised with the passage of time. He joined the
duties of Boiler Overhauling Mechanic on 14.9.1977 and since then he performed his duties
accordingly. In terms of the policy his employment in the Board was confirmed as against the
post of coolie with effect from 1.4.1976 under order issued by the competent authority on
14.9.1978.
4. The respondent-workman claimed that the same pay scale which has been given to one
Jogeshwar Prasad, who was working at Sohawal Power House, Faizabad as Boiler Mistry was
given the status of 'Skilled-A' worker and was given the pay scale of Rs. 150-285 with effect
from 1.4.1969, should also be given to him.
5. In terms thereof he raised an industrial dispute contending inter alia that since the work of
Boiler Overhauling Mechanic and Boiler Mistry are identical and the nature and responsibilities
are also similar, he Is entitled to get the same pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal
work. He claimed that his pay should be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 150-285 with effect from
1.4.1977, as revised from time to time.
6. The aforesaid industrial dispute raised by the Union on behalf of the respondent-workman was
referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal, on receipt of the aforesaid reference,
issued notices to the parties upon which the parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings.

Issues before the Trial Court:

2

Whether the employers should give pay scale of Skilled Category -A to Shri Aziz Ahmad, Boiler
Overhauling Mechanic?

Judgment of the Trial Court:
Trial Judge rendered the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs holding that the work being done by the
workman Aziz Ahmad as Boiler Overhauling Mechanic is the same as the

work of Fitter and that the pay scale of the posts of Boiler Mistry and the fitter was 180- 285 and
that on the principal of equal pay for equal work, workman Aziz Ahmad is entitled to the same
pay scale as that of the Fitter.

Appeal to the High Court:
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant Board
preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad which was entertained and was heard on
merit.

Judgment of the High Court:
The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 dismissed the writ petition
holding that no interference was called for. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the
Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the workman had actually worked as Boiler Mistry
and had discharged superior functions of the post which was equal to that of Fitter.

Appeal to the Supreme Court:
The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge and award passed
by the Tribunal filed the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Questions before the Supreme Court:
1. Was the learned tribunal Court correct in putting the burden of proof on the employer to
record the job requirements of the aforesaid posts and to prove and establish that they are not
identical?

2. Was the learned Single Judge was correct in upholding the decision of tribunal Court

Judgment of the Supreme Court:
Supreme Court held the findings are incorrect. It set aside both the award passed by the Tribunal
as also the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted back the matter to the
Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

Reasons for the judgment:

Industrial Tribunal committed a manifest error of law and of fact initially by placing the burden
on the employer to prove and establish the job requirements of the said three posts, and
thereafter, again committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the posts are identical on
the basis of the pleadings of the parties alone.

The Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if it was the employer who was to show that there
was no equality in the work. On the contrary, the person who asserts that there is equality has to
prove it. The Tribunal as also the High Court while affirming the award changed the rule of the
game by placing the entire burden of proof on the management that the posts are not identical.

Assessment of the identical nature of the work has to be adjudicated upon and decided by
making an analysis of their nature of duties, responsibilities, pay scales and other factors which
are required to be considered for deciding such an issue. Principle of Equal pay for equal work
cannot be claimed merely because there was delegation of certain powers.

Most Important Reason:
The burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same. In the
present case it was the contention of the respondent-workman, who claimed that the job
requirements, nature and responsibilities of the post of Boiler Mistry/Fitter are identical and
similar with that of the Boiler Overhauling Mechanic. The burden, therefore, was on the
workman to prove and establish the aforesaid facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence. He
was required to place documentary evidence in support of the same.

Ratio:

"Burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same."




3. State Of Punjab & Others v. Mangu Ram
3


Facts:
1. Plaintiff, Mangu Ram, is serving the State in the Maximum Security Jail Lines, Nabha since
1994 as a Cook for last sixteen years.
2. State paid him daily wages and treated him as such on the ground that there is no post
sanctioned. It held that the plaintiff, being employed on daily wages, cannot be allowed pay at
any regular scale meant for regular employees.
3.He referred to the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab dated 23.1.2001 where all
the daily wagers and temporary employees in any department of Punjab State, who had
completed service of three years, were to be regularised.
4. Mangu Ram pleaded that he had completed this period and was entitled to regularisation and
so also to the pay and other allowances.
5. He accordingly served a notice under Section 80 CPC and when he failed to get response filed
the suit.

Questions before the Trial Court:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pay scale against post of Langri?

Judgment of the Trial Court:
The suit of Mangu Ram was decreed holding him entitled to daily wages in the minimum of
regular pay scale against post of Langri/Cook from defendants w.e.f. 1.10.2003 till date.


3
State Of Punjab & Others vs Mangu Ram on 10 February, 2010, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1043719/ , visited on
17
th
September , 2010.
I.L.R. [2005] 15(2) Punjab 642
Proceedings before and the Judgment of the District Court:
The State filed an appeal before the District Judge, Patiala. The Appellate Court found no ground
to interfere in the judgment and decree under appeal and accordingly dismissed the same.

Proceedings before the High Court:
The state unsatisfied with the decision of the District Court filed the second appeal in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Questions before the High Court:
Whether a person can ask for to be paid minimum of the scale on the basis of equal pay for equal
work?

Judgment of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons for the Judgment:
The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' gets attracted in all those cases where one is able to
establish that the work performed is same or identical but is being differently compensated or
paid. Once it was found as a matter of fact that the respondents- plaintiffs were performing the
same duties, they would become entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scales though not all
the facilities and benefits that would be available to the regularly appointed employees.

The denial of minimum pay to such an employee would be highly arbitrary and discriminatory.

Most appropriate Reason:
As Mangu Ram is performing the same duties as of the Cook for last sixteen years, there are no
grounds on which his minimum pay scales can be denied.

Ratio:
“Daily wagers working against existing posts for a long time are entitled to salary in minimum of
the regular pay of the post.”


4. U.P. Land Development Corporation and Anr. v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar
and Anr.
4


Summary of Material Facts:
1. Defendant No. 1 - U.P. Land Development Corporation executed several schemes, most of
which were sponsored and/or funded by the World Bank by engaging staff on contract basis.

2. The plaintiffs, who are graduates in engineering applied for being employed under the
Corporation as Assistant Engineers. They were interviewed by the Selection Committee along
with other eligible persons and were adjudged suitable for employment on contract basis for
completion of `Million Wells Scheme'.

3. As a sequel to the approval accorded by the Managing Director of the Corporation, two
separate orders dated 18.2.1991 were issued engaging the respondents on contract basis for a
period of three months on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2000/- per month with a stipulation that
their claim for regular appointment will not be entertained.

4. The tenure of engagement of the respondents was extended by the Managing Director of the
Corporation from time to time for short periods of three months each. However, after one year
and three months of their initial engagement, the concerned authority passed an order dated
12.5.1992 and extended the services of the respondents till further orders.

5. After completing three years' service, the respondents jointly filed Writ Petition No. 161 (S/B)
of 1994 for issue of a mandamus to the appellants herein to pay them salary in the regular pay
scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer and also regularize their services on that post
by asserting that they fulfill the qualification prescribed for the post.




4

The appellants contested the writ petition. The thrust of their case was that at the time of
engagement of the respondents, no sanctioned post of Assistant Engineer was available and they
were appointed on consolidated salary for a fixed period.

Proceedings before the High Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court negatived the respondents' claim for regularization of
service by observing that they had not made specific prayer to that effect but accepted their plea
for issue of a mandamus to the appellants herein to pay them salary in the pay scale prescribed
for the post of Assistant Engineer.

Judgment of the High Court:
Appeal was allowed. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Questions before the Supreme Court:
Whether the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court to the appellants to pay
salary to the respondents in the regular pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer is
legally correct?

Judgment of the Supreme Court:
Appeal was dismissed. The appellants were directed to pay to the respondents minimum of the
pay-scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer (as revised from time to time) from the
date of their appointment till they continued in the employment of the Corporation.

Reasons for the Judgment:
The appellants were not justified in continuing the respondents on a consolidated salary of Rs.
2000/- per month despite the fact that at the time of their selection, two sanctioned posts of
Assistant Engineer and one post of Junior Engineer were lying vacant and proposal for
appointing the respondents without any nomenclature was made with the sole object of taking
work of the particular post from them without paying salary in the regular pay-scale of any post.

The decision of the Corporation to effect economy by depriving the respondents' even minimum
of the pay-scale was totally arbitrary and unjustified.

Most appropriate Reason:
It is reasonable to take the view that the respondents had been arbitrarily deprived of their
legitimate right to get minimum of the pay-scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer.

Ratio:
Non-payment of minimum pay scale to the employee appointed on contract basis for a long time
for a particular post amounts to arbitrarily depriving the employee of their legitimate right to get
minimum of the pay-scale.

5. State of Haryana and Anr. v. Tilak Raj and Ors.

Summary of Facts:
1. The thirty five respondents were appointed at different points of time as helpers on daily
wages in the Haryana Roadways.
2.Claiming that they were entitled to regularization in view of service rendered for long period
and/or that they were to be paid the same salary as paid to regular employees since the nature of
work done by them was similar.
3. In other words for the second relief claimed principle of "equal pay for equal work" was
pressed into service. They asserted to be educationally qualified for the post.

Hence, they filed writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Proceedings before the High Court:
The appellants disputed the claim of the respondents that they were educationally qualified for
appointment to the post of helper and also took the stand that the principle of "equal pay for
equal work" was factually and legally not applicable to their case.

Judgment of the High Court:
Petition was partly allowed. High Court held that the petitioners would be entitled to the
regularization of the service and the plaintiffs were directed to be paid the minimum pay in the
scale of pay applicable to the regular employees.

The State of Haryana appealed against this judgment.

Questions before the Supreme Court
1. Whether the High Court was right in directing that the respondents should be paid the same
salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees holding similar posts?

2. Whether high Court was justified in applying the principle of „Equal pay for equal work‟?

Judgment of the Supreme Court:
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High court.

Reasons for the judgment
1. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. No
material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it
is not possible to hold that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is an abstract one.

2. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with
the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and
allowances.

Most appropriate reason:
To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of
equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a
par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination.

Ratio:
For the application of the concept „Equal pay for equal work‟, 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 is required.

6. Union of I ndia (UOI ) and Ors. v. Dineshan K.K.

Summary of Facts:
The nub of the grievance of the writ petitioner, working in the rank of a Radio Mechanic in the
Assam Rifles was that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Director General of Assam Rifles
having accepted in principle that the members of the Assam Rifles, should be given the same
rank and pay structure as was given to other central paramilitary forces, yet the same had been
denied to them.

It was pladed that as the Ministry of Home Affairs had conveyed its decision to rationalize the
rank structure of non gazetted personnel of central paramilitary forces vide order dated
26
th
January, 1998, equal pay structure in other ranks, including the Radio Mechanics in the
Assam Rifles could not be denied.

It was also pointed out that the Radio Mechanics working in the Delhi Police organization had
been given a much higher pay scale on 10
th
October, 1997 which was being denied to the similar
rank holders in the Assam Rifles.

The claim of the petitioner for higher pay scales on the lines of the pay scales of Delhi Police
organization was seriously contested by the respondent on the ground that the Assam Rifles
being a central police organization, it could not claim parity with Delhi Police organization,
which was not a central paramilitary force.

Hence the plaintiff, Dineshan K.K. filed a writ petition in the Guauhati High Court.

Proceedings before the High Court:
Taking note of the admission on the part of the Union of India that there was disparity between
the pay scales of the members of the Assam Rifles and similarly ranked personnel of other
paramilitary forces, the High Court felt that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory if the
pay scales given to Radio Mechanics in CRPF and BSF were denied to the Radio Mechanics in
Assam Rifles, when the qualifications and service requirements in all the three organizations
were identical.

Questions before the High Court:
Whether all the paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles are at par with each other?

Whether there was apparent 'disparity' in the pay scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles with
their counterparts in other central paramilitary forces?

Judgment of the High Court:
High Court while allowing the Writ Petition, issued direction that the permission was granted by
the Union of India to re-designate the rank of Havildar (radio mechanic) as Warrant Officer
recommended by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the pay scale as admissible to their
counterparts in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Border Security Force (BSF)
shall be granted from the same date

Proceedings before the Supreme Court:
The Union of India and the Director General of Assam Rifles filed an appeal against the
judgment of the High Court

In the affidavit submitted by the Director General, Assam Rifles, who is one of the petitioners in
the present appeal, had himself recommended to the Ministry of Home Affairs that the 'anomaly'
in the pay scales of the Radio Mechanics should be rectified.

Questions before the Supreme Court:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in giving the directions?
2. Whether having admitted in affidavit, the „apparent disparity‟ and „anomaly‟ in the pay scales
of radio mechanics, the Petitioners could be permitted to perpetuate apparent discriminatory
differentiation in the pay scales because of the disparity in pre-revised and revised scales of the
personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission,
irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary
forces?

Judgment of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Reasons for the Judgment:
The Petitioners have admitted that all the paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles are at par
with each other and there was apparent „disparity‟ in the pay scales of the personnel of Assam
Rifles with their counterparts in other central paramilitary forces.

It will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and
granting of pay scale 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.
If they are treated differently or the basis of classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary
or unjust, it is open to the Court to interfere.

Most appropriate Reason:
In view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that radio mechanics in
other paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous duties as compared to the
radio mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly
irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio:
Having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in
Article 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ has
assumed status of a fundamental right.


7. State of Haryana and Ors. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors.
5


Summary of Facts:
The respondents were initially appointed as Ledger-clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-
cum-chowkidars, fitters, petrol man, surveyor, drivers etc. on daily wages or on contractual
basis.

All of them claimed the minimum wages payable under the pay-scale of regular Class IV
employees from the date of their appointments.

They were all regularized with effect from October, 2003 and they have been getting the
minimum payable under the regular pay scale of Class-IV employees from the date of their
regularization.

Writ petitions was filed by these Petitioners before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh

Questions before the High Court:
Whether or not these persons were entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of a regular Class IV
employee?

Judgment of the High Court:

5

The petition was allowed. Respondents were directed to be given the minimum of the wages in
the scale payable to a regular Class IV employee from the date of the filing of the respective
Petition.

Questions before the Supreme Court:
Whether the directions of the High Court to pay the minimum wage in the scale payable to a
Class IV employee, from the date of their filing the respective Petition, were justified?

Judgment of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and also remitted the matters back to
the High Court for disposal.

Reasons for the judgment:
The respondents who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in
regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.
Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,
nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment.
They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the
requirements for selection are not as rigorous.
There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the
service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as
prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.
They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor
can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed.
High Court had blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
applies without examining any relevant factors

Most appropriate Reason:
The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various
dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may
differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work.
Ratio:
Persons employed on contract cannot claim equal pay on basis on equal pay for equal work.