GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

-MID SEMESTER EVALUATION-

LABOUR LAW-I

-CASE ANALYSIS-
RANDHIR SINGH
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(1982) 1 SCC 618

SUBMITTED BY:
FAVI SINGLA
18A037
SEMESTER: VII
BATCH: 2018-23
CONTACT: +91-7087213046

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. ASHA VERMA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW
 -Randhir Singh v. UOI & Ors.-

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSIT

~TABLE OF CONTENTS~

~INTRODUCTION~...............................................................................................3

~FACTS~..................................................................................................................4

~ISSUE~...................................................................................................................4

~ARGUMENTS~.....................................................................................................5

~FINAL DECISION~..............................................................................................6

~CRITICAL ANALYSIS~......................................................................................7

~CONCLUSION~..................................................................................................11

2|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -CONTINUOUS EVALUATION-

~INTRODUCTION~

India, a social welfare country, was found on the principle of equality, fairness and justice. These
principles are enshrined in our Constitution by the way of fundamental rights and the directive
principle of state policy. A basic doctrine of equality would be fairly compensating an individual
for the work done by him/her. It can also be said that equals should be treated equally. This
principle becomes an important doctrine in a workplace wherein every individual doing the same
job needs to compensated fairly and equally without any discrimination. The Preamble of the
International Labour Organisation’s Constitution recognises the principle of “equal remuneration
for work of equal value” as one of the most essential means to achieve improvement of labour
conditions. Our country doesn’t expressly recognise such principle but the same has been
enshrined in the directive principles of state policy under Article 39 of the Constitution. The state
has the duty “to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it
may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the
institutions of national life”. It becomes imperative for the largest democracy of the world to
function on principles of equality and to provide fair working conditions to the public. The
judgement under analysis is the landmark case of Randhir Singh v. UOI1, wherein the Apex
Court set a commendable example of utmost faith and confidence in the constitutional working
of India. The Court herein explained and examined the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.
In the present case analysis, the author ensues the analysis with providing a summary of the
facts, issues, arguments and the final decision taken by the bench in the present case. Further, the
author will analyse the judgement by providing with some contemporary developments on the
principle and the post judgement scenario and critically analyse the same. Lastly, the author will
conclude with some suggestions and recommendations on how the application of the principle
can be made more effective.

1
(1982) 1 SCC 618

3|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -Randhir Singh v. UOI & Ors.-

~FACTS~

In the present case, the petitioner is a Driver constable in the Delhi Administration in the Delhi
Police force department. The pay scale in his department is Rs. 210- 270 (non-matriculates) and
Rs. 225-308 (matriculates). The pay scale of drivers in other departments is as follows:

S. NO. DEPARTMENTS PAY SCALE OF DRIVERS

1. Railway Protection Force Rs. 260-400

2. Non-Secretariat offices in Delhi Rs. 260-6-326-EB-8-350

3. Secretariat offices in Delhi Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-

366-EB-8-8-8-390-10-400

4. Language Commission Rs. 260-350

5. Drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Rs. 330-480
Department of Lighthouse.

The petitioner claims that he discharges the same duties as the rest of these drivers mentioned
above and also claims that his duties are more onerous than the others. On the basis of this, he
contends that there is no reason to discriminate against the petitioner and other driver-constables
for the mere reason that he has been described as “constables” due to him belonging to the police
force. After his claims for better scales of pay were not meet with any success, the petitioner
filed a writ petition by the way of Article 32 of the Constitution.

~ISSUE~

 Whether the principle of “equal pay for equal work” a doctrine of substance?
 Whether the petitioner’s claims for better scales on the basis of assertions made by him
correct and sound and is the writ maintainable?

4|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -CONTINUOUS EVALUATION-

~ARGUMENTS~

-PETITIONER-

The petitioner argued that there was no reason to discriminate against him as his duties as the
driver-constable were no less arduous and their duties were not less heavy than the duties and
responsibilities of drivers in other departments. The petitioner further contended that the pay
commission failed to consider the drivers appointed in police personnel as a separate category
and the special considerations which prevailed in the cases of other drivers were rightfully
prevailing in the case of driver-constables too, but this was also ignored by the pay commission.
They further contended that their duty was exposed to security risk, it had long hours and
inconvenience and they were required to go through a test of proficiency and possess heavy
transport license. All these were no less than the responsibilities of drivers in other departments
and that the pay commission failed to recognise these arguments and the representation made by
them for their pay scale to be equal to drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments was
rejected. Hence, the writ was filed before the Apex Court.

-RESPONDENT-

The Respondents submitted that the situation of the petitioner is different from the drivers in
other departments for the purpose of fixation of pay scale. It further contended that the scales of
pay were decided after taking into consideration of all the circumstances and that drivers have
not been treated as a separate class and that the petitioner was just a mere constable of the Delhi
police force and that there was no such category of drivers in the Delhi Police Force. The
Respondents referred to observations made in the cases of Binoy Kumar Mukherjee v. UOI and
Makhan Singh v. UOI and Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. UOI, wherein the Court held that the
doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” was an abstract one and had nothing to do with Article 14
and accordingly, the respondents contended that submissions of the Petitioner do not stand.

5|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
-Randhir Singh v. UOI & Ors.-

6|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -CONTINUOUS EVALUATION-

~FINAL DECISION~

The Court appreciated the rising social and political consciousness and commended the
underprivileged for clamouring their rights and for providing faith and confidence in the Court
for providing the same.
The Court found no substance in the arguments put forth by the respondents. They provided that
the argument of different circumstances for drivers of different departments and that the doctrine
of “equal pay for equal work” is not a doctrine to be acted upon by courts was found to be
unsound. The court, while examining the application process of the petitioner, held that there
was not a slightest doubt that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Delhi Police Force.
They held that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is a doctrine of substance enshrined as
in Article 39(d) of the Constitution and that the word “socialist” in the preamble must mean
“equal pay for equal work”. The court further provided with certain examples of how all
socialistic law systems follow the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and how this doctrine
is deductible from Article 14 and 19 when read with Article 39(d). The Court provided that
unequal scales of pay which is based on no classification or irrational classification, a breach of
this doctrine is clearly made out. The Court observed that the drivers in the Delhi Police force
worked the same functions and due to them being given the “powers, functions and privileges of
a police officer”, their duties and responsibilities are more arduous.
The court finally provided that there is no reason for the drivers in the Delhi Police Force to be
paid lower than others and accordingly, directed the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the
petitioner and the drivers of the Delhi Police Force at least on par with the drivers of Railway
Protection Force.

7|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -Randhir Singh v. UOI & Ors.-

~CRITICAL ANALYSIS~

The Apex Court in the present case has enumerated on the principle of “equal pay for equal
work” and has highlighted its constitutional significance in our socialistic legal system. It is one
of the few pronouncements where the Court has performed its duties with utmost efficiency and
has restored the faith of all kinds of societies, especially the underprivileged, in the constitutional
framework of equality and justice. The Court has very efficiently justified the doctrine as a
fundamental one and has taken multiple examples from other jurisdictions to prove that this
doctrine is being religiously followed and has been documented by the way of various statutes in
those jurisdictions. The Court declared the doctrine to be one of substance and justified the same
with the combined reading of Article 14 2 and 163 with Article 39(d)4. Herein, it is appreciated
that the directive principles of the state policy have been given an equal importance to
fundamental rights and have not been construed as mere suggestions given by the founding
fathers. The court also delved into the issue of reasonable classification for fixation of scales of
pay and accordingly observed that an irrational classification or no classification done for the
purpose of fixing scales of pay would be a clear breach of the doctrine. It becomes lucid that the
Court had adopted a liberal and wide approach while dealing with the issue at hand and has done
a commendable job at realising the basic objective of constitution and the interpreters of the
constitution i.e. the judiciary. They have articulated the importance of these fundamental rights
and the right of every individual irrespective of the economic and social background.
The pronouncement of Randhir Singh v. UOI acted as a doorway to a progressive
implementation of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” by the Courts through a broad and
efficient lens of equality, fairness, socialism and justice. The doctrine, at present, is not a mere
constitutional principle but a service law principle that focuses on the prerogative of employers
to create hierarchies of posts in their workforce, by splitting it up into different cadres,
departments, etc.5 The Randhir Singh pronouncement highlighted the constitutional importance

2
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 14
3
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 16
4
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 39(d)
5
Gautam Bhatia, “Equal Pay for Equal Work: Statute and Constitution” (Indian Constitutional law and Philosophy,
9 April, 2017) < https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/equal-pay-for-equal-work-statute-and-
constitution/> accessed 5 November, 2021

8|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -CONTINUOUS EVALUATION-

of the doctrine, which paved way for the statutory documentation and sealing of the doctrine. the
judgement did not focus on the gender discrimination and inequality in wages for different sexes
but discussed the doctrine through the lens of general application. It focused on the quality of
work, the quantity of work, the nature of work and efficiency as the determining factors for the
fixation of scales of pay. This highlights the progressive attitude of the bench and also conveys
the importance of “merit” for fair compensation and not unnecessary differentiating factors such
as sex, different departments etc. The Court focused on the aspect of reasonable classification as
well which shows that the Court aimed to do justice to the spirit of equality preserved in Article
14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
There are plethora of statutes and laws which promote this doctrine of fair pay and equal pay for
equal work. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 19236 provides for financial protection to
workmen when there is an accidental injury by means of compensation. Further, the Minimum
Wages Act, 19487 provides for the fixation of minimum wage due to the unequal bargaining
power in India. The Factories Act, 19488 aims to regulate the condition of labour employed in
factories and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 19709 provides for the
separate provision for utilities and fixed working hours for women. Finally, the Equal
Remuneration Act of 1976 provides for or equal pay to men & women for their equal
work.10 The Act took into consideration the unequal physical and social burden a woman faces at
the time of pregnancy and rearing. The Code of Wages Bill was introduced in 2019 and was
passed by both the houses which aimed to replace four statutes i.e. Payment of Wages Act,
1936; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; and Equal Remuneration Act,
1976.11 This bill is a commendable step taken by the government which finally moves away from
the binary bifurcation of sexual arrangement of men and women and rather focuses on “equal
pay for equal work” for all the genders. The Act has further incorporated provisions which has
increased benefits for oppressed genders, including transgender. Section 16 of the Act gives
power to the government to declare the unequal equal, without reasons or explanations as to
why.12  
6
The Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923
7
The Minimum Wages Act 1948
8
The Factories Act 1948
9
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970
10
Equal Remuneration Act 1976
11
The Code of Wages 2019
12
The Code of Wages 2019, s. 16

9|Page
LABOUR LAW-I
 -Randhir Singh v. UOI & Ors.-

In Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. vs. Audrey D'Costa and Others (1987)13, the doctrine
was given due recognition by the Courts. In Frank Anthony Public School Employees
Association v. Union of India14, the Court again upheld the doctrine by striking down a
provision which was declared to be violative of Article 14 as it made discrimination in pay and
other conditions on the main ground of aided school and unaided minority schools. Further, in
Mewa Ram v. AIIMS15, the SC held that when the educational qualifications of two posts are
different and the measure of responsibilities are different, the principle of equal pay for equal
work would not apply. The Court, therefore, applied the criteria of merit for fixing wages instead
of discriminating factors. In FAIC and CES v. UOI16, the Court focused on the nature of work
and not the volume of work for fixing scales of pay. The Court accepted that there might be
qualitative differences as regards to reliability and responsibility which needs to be taken into
account and accordingly, there can be different scales of pay for government servants holding
same post and performing similar work on the basis of difference in degree of responsibility,
reliability and confidentiality. A similar observation was also made in the case of State of U.P.
vs. J.P. Chaurasia17. In Budhan Choundhary v. State of Bihar 18, the SC provided that the
classification between individuals must be reasonable and must be based on firstly, intelligible
differentia and secondly, such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved. This is an adequate criterion for the efficient application of the doctrine. This was
eloquently provided by the bench in the present case where the Court focused on a reasonable
classification and not on irrational classification.
In the case of V. Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh19, the Court provided that the
difference in educational qualifications is a reasonable classification for difference in scales of
pay. In State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., the Court held that temporary workers who are
similarly placed with permanent employees and discharge similar duties and functions as
discharged by permanent employees must be given wages at par with the latter irrespective of
class.20 A similar observation was made in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986), the court

13
(1987) 2 SCC 469
14
(1986) 4 SCC 707
15
AIR 1989 SC 1256
16
(1988) 3 SCC 91
17
AIR 1989 SC 19
18
AIR 1955 SC 191
19
AIR 1989 SC 1308
20
(2017) 1 SCC 148

10 | P a g e
LABOUR LAW-I
 -CONTINUOUS EVALUATION-

invoked Article 14 which provides for equality before law and equal protection of the law to hold
the right of equal pay for equal work for temporary employees that are engaged in similar work
as regular employees.21 In Grih Kalyan Kendra v. UOI, the Court provided that the doctrine of
Equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental rights in view of Article 39(d)
and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 22 This was upheld by the Jharkhand HC in the recent
judgements of Employer in relation to Management of Food Corporation of India vs.
Employer in relation to Management of Food Corporation of India. 23 In State of Punjab v.
The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors., the Court provided that there should
be parity of pay in posts having same nature of duties and same basic qualifications and job
requirements.24 In a recent case of UOI v. Manoj Kumar (2021), the SC has held that the
principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied merely on the basis of designation.25
It becomes apparent that the legislative and judicial approach of our country towards this
doctrine is broad and is based on merit and nature of work and focuses on reasonable
classification for fixing the wages. The different steps taken for upholding the spirit of the
doctrine are appreciated and it is quite clear that the government is adopting a progressive
approach with the introduction of Code of Wages.

21
(1986) 1 SCC 637
22
AIR 1991 SC 1173
23
W.P. (L) No. 3745 of 2009
24
(2017) SCC 379
25
LL 2021 SC 409

11 | P a g e
LABOUR LAW-I
 -Randhir Singh v. UOI & Ors.-

~CONCLUSION~

India is a country which was found on the principle of equality, fairness and justice. Our
founding fathers did not leave any stone unturned to promote social welfare and to ensure that
every individual gets his/her due share in economic, cultural and social sense. The present
judgement was one of the earliest judgements to give the principle of “equal pay for equal work”
its due relevance and to highlight the importance of this doctrine for better functioning of our
socialistic law system. The Court adopted a harmonious reading of Directive principles and the
fundamental rights indicating an efficient interpretation of our constitution and upholding the
maximum spirit of our grund norm. Till date, this judgement is used as a strong precedent to
exemplify the progressive and inclusive approach of the Courts and to ensure equal working
rights to the people in workplace. The Court focused on reasonable classification and the nature
of work one take up for fixing scale of pay. This opened the doorway for the courts in future
cases to adopt principles and to not deny anyone of fair pay.
Despite such broad application, India is still lacking equality. A 2019 report provided that the
face of inequality in India is women. The gender pay gap in India is 34%. 26 And this is nothing
compared to the disheartening situation of the LGBTQ+ community which faces not only the
issue of pay gap, but also lack of opportunities and some basic human rights in workplace. There
are still certain companies which do not hire any gender other than men and women. This binary
classification for the purpose of wages is still prevalent in this day and time. The judicial and
legislative approach at present, though commendable, is still a very small step taken in this area
of law and there is still a need for proper and stringent mechanism to achieve the constitutional
goal of “equal pay for equal work”. We still haven’t reached our full potential to ensure social
welfare of all workers due to lack of initiative by both legislative and judicial hotshots to
effectively implement statutory and constitutional goals.

26
Alok Prasanna Kumar, “Equal Pay for Equal Work” (2016) 51(49) EPW

12 | P a g e
LABOUR LAW-I