Deepak Service PDF

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k

PROJECT REPORT ON

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

Submitted to:Dr.Jasvinder Kaur

Submitted by: Deepak Saroj

132/12 B.Com/L.L.B

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I Deepak eepak Saroj express express my heartf heartfelt elt gratitude ratitude to my revered revered Service Service law teach teacher er Dr.J Dr.Jas aswinder winder Kau Kaurr for providi providing ng me with this this opportunity to ttak ake e up this project. It would be inappropriate if I fail to mention a special word of thanks to all those who helped me in compiling the material of this project.

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 16 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE BURDEN OF PROOF NOT AN ABSTRACT ABSTRACT DOCTRINE

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k TABL TA BL E OF C ASES AS ES

a. Randhir Randhir Singh Singh v. v. Union Union of India India,, AIR 1982 1982 SC SC 879 b. Sukhnandan Thakur vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat. 617, followed in Sampath vs. State of Madras, AIR 1967 c. Banarsi Banarsidas das vs. vs. State State of U.P. U.P. AIR AIR 1956 1956 SC 520. 520. d. C.B. C.B. Muthamm Muthammaa vs. Union Union of India, India, AIR 197 1979 9 SC 1868 1868.. e. Air India India vs. vs. Narges Nargesh h Mirza, Mirza, AIR 1981 SC SC 1829. 1829. f. West Bengal Bengal State State Electr Electricit icity y Board Board vs. D.B, D.B, Ghosh, Ghosh, AIR 1985 1985 SC. SC. g. State of Madhaya Pradesh vs. Pramod Pramod Bhartiya, Bhartiya, AIR 1993 1993 SC SC 286:(1993) 1 SCC 539. h. U.P.-Rajya U.P.-Rajya Sahakari Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Bank U.P. U.P. vs. Its Workmen, Workmen, AIR 1990 SC 495. i. Air India India Statut Statutory ory Corpo Corporati ration on vs. vs. United United Labour Labour Union Union,, AIR 1997 SC 645. j. D.C.Jain:

"Equal

Pay

for

Equal

Work:

Constitutional

Ramification", Award Digest, k. Journal of Labour Labour Legislation Legislation,, [Vol. XII: 4], 1986, 1986, p. 109. 109. l. L.C.Dhin L.C.Dhingra gra and and Arvind Arvinder er Singh Singh Dalal: Dalal: "Equ "Equal al Pay for for Equal Equal Work and the Law" m. A Critical Analysis, Analysis, M.D.U. Law Journal, Journal, 2001, p. 27-28. n. Daily Rated Rated Casual Casual Labour Labour vs. Union Union of India, India, (1988) (1988) SCC 122. o. Jeet Singh Singh vs. vs. Municipa Municipall Corpora Corporation tion of Delhi, Delhi, (1986 (1986)) Supp Supp SCC SCC 560. p. Jagdish Prasad vs. M.C.D. (1993) Supp (2) SCC 221. q. State of of Tamil Nadu vs. M.R.Alagapp M.R.Alagappan, an, AIR AIR 1997 SC 2006. 2006. r. State State of of Haryan Haryanaa vs. vs. Jasm Jasmer er Singh Singh.. 1996(11 1996(11)) SCC SCC 77: 77:

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k s. M.P. Jain, Jain, ‘Indian ‘Indian Const Constitu itution tional al Law’, Law’, Ed.V. Ed.V. 2004, 2004, p. 1378.. 1378.. t. State State Bank Bank of India India v. M.R.Gan M.R.Ganesh esh Babu, Babu, AIR AIR 2002 2002 SC 1955. 1955. u. Dr. R.N.Sharm R.N.Sharmaa v. University University of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, 1997 (5) SLR SLR (Raj.)369. v. Chief Conservato Conservatorr of Forests v. Jagannath Jagannath Maruti Maruti Kondhare, Kondhare, AIR 1996 SC 2898 w. Union of India India v. Dineshan, Dineshan, AIR AIR 2008 SC 1028 x. N.Y.K.S N.Y.K.S v. v. Rajesh Rajesh Mohan Mohan,, AIR 2OO7 2OO7 SC SC 2509 y. State State of Haryan Haryanaa v. Tilak Tilak Raj, Raj, AIR 2003 2003 SC SC 2658 z. Supreme Court Employees Employees Welfare Association Association v. Union of India, India, AIR 1990 SC 334


INTRODUCTION The Constitutions of India, 1950 in its Preamble indisputably indisputably require the State to secure to all all its citizens, “social justice, economic and political; equality of status and opportunity, and the rule of the law.” In addition, the Bill of Rights under Part III of the Constitution enshrines the equality clause of wide import. Moreover, the Equal Remuneration Act , 1976, stresses on payment of equal remuneration to men and women employees for the same work or work of similar nature. But the question is whether there is still pay disparity between men and women in India in this twenty first century? This paper evaluates the constitutional and legal provisions against inequality including judicial pronouncements pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is a concept that has gradually e volved volved and has come to be recognized by a number of countries world-wide due to an increase in the instances of discriminatory pay scales for the same type of work 1. Article[S1] Article[S1] .23 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , 1948 debars all types of distinctions and classifications and clearly asserts that ‘everyone without any discrimination has the right to equal pay for equal work’. Similarly, Art.7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art.15 of the African Charter on Human Human and Peoples’ Rights Rights , the

International Labour Organisation Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work , Art.11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, S.59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, Clause 2 of S.111 of Czechoslovak Code , S.67

of the Bulgarian Code, S.40 of the Code of German Democratic Republic , Para 2 of S.33 of the Rumanian Code, Art.2 Art.2 of the Convention Concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, etc., are other best international instruments that

uphold the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. However, even after six decades of independence and with the existence of the international instruments that promote the principle of equal pay for equal work, and more importantly with the world’s biggest Constitution, India still lacks a comprehensive and transparent wage policy for men and women in all the sectors of the t he economy 1.

1

http:/// www http:/ www.redif .rediff.com/money f.com/money/ 2008/nov/ 08/nov/26 26equal-pay-for l-pay-for-equa -equall-work.htm work.htm


OBJECTIVES The object behind the principle of “Equal pay for equal work” is to bring about socioeconomic equality so as to secure the ultimate iideal of Economic Democracy. Explaining the 2 contents of the principle in Randhir Singh v. v. Union of India , the supreme court observed :

To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substances if equal work means equal pay. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again, the word ‘Socialist’ must mean `something. Even if it does not mean ‘ to each according to his need ’, ’, it must at least mean ‘equal pay for equal work ’. ’. The Apex Court said that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was expressly recognised by all socialist systems of law. The Court referred to the Preamble of the International Labour Organisation which recognises the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great great that the peace peace and harmony of the world are imperilled.” imperilled.”

2

SeeRandhir Singh v. Union Union of India, India, AIR AIR 1982 SC879.


INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE The constitution of the International Labour Organisation, as originally adopted in 1919, proclaimed the “special “special and urgent importance” of of “the principle that men and women should should receive equal remuneration for the work of equal value”110. The preamble of the amended constitution which came into force in 1948 proclaims that “improvement (of the conditions of labour) is urgently required by recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value.” Further Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights of 1966, Interalia, provide: “The states parties to the present covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular the equal remuneration for work of equal value with out distinction of any kind in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not not inferior to those enjoyment by men, with equal pay for equal work.” Earlier in February 1957, at its 11th session, the General Assembly of the United Nations third Committee adopted the test of Article 7 of the draft international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognized as follows: “The right of everyone to enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work including fair wage and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular, women being being guaranteed equal pay for equal equal work.” Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) provides that:“all the persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection by the law without discrimination.”In this respect, the law prohibits all discrimina discrimination tion and guarante guarantees es to all persons persons equal equal and efficient efficient protectio protection n against against discrimination, notably of race, colour, sex, language, creed, political opinion and any other opinion of national or social origin, of fortune, birth, or any other situation. Moreover, Article 10 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination in regard to women 1967, inter alia, provides:

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k ”All appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure to womenmarried or unmarried, the same right as to men in the field of economic and social life and notably the right to equality of remuneration with men and equality of pay for work of equal value”. In the United Nations the Commission on the status of women, a functional commission of the Economic and social Council, has recognized the need for providing “equal pay for equal work” for men and women workers. It has also taken several steps to promote the principles of equal pay. For instance, in 1947, at its first session, it set forth as one of its aim that women should enjoy the same rights as men with regard to wages. In 1948, at its second session, it “adopted a resolution affirming its support of the principle of equal pay and recommended that the Economic and social Council call on member states to encourage application of the principles by all possible means.


ARTICLE 16 According to Article 16(I) "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state.”

Article 16 guaranteed against discrimination is limited to 'employment’ and ‘appointment’ under the state. It embodies the particular -application of general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 with special reference reference for appointment appointment and employment employment under the state. 3 As Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matter of appointment in state services. It does not however, prevent the state from prescribing the necessary qualifications and selective tests for recruitment for government services. The qualifications prescribed may besides mental excellence, include physical fitness, sense of discipline, moral integrity loyalty to the state. Where the appointment requires technical knowledge, technical qualification may be prescribed. 4 In C.B, Muthamma's case5 a provision in service rules requiring a female employee to obtain the permission of the Government in writing before her marriage is solemnized and denying her the right to be promoted on the ground that the candidate was married women. It was held to be discriminatory against women and hence unconstitutional. In Air India case (popularly known as Air Hostesses case )6the petitioner challenged the validity of the regulation under which they could be retired at the age of 33 years or if they got married within four years of their service or on first pregnancy on the ground that they were discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution. The court held that the provision on pregnancy bar and the retirement and the option of the Managing Director were unconstitutional as being unreasonable and arbitrary and viol ative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board 7has observed that a regulation that authorises authorises the termination of of services of a permanent permanent employee employee by serving 3

Sukhnandan ukhnandan Thakur Thakur vs. State State of Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat. 617, foll followed owed in Sampath vs. State of Madras, AIR 1967 1967 Banarsidas vs. State of U.P. U.P. AIR AIR 1956 SC 520. 5 C.B. Muth Mutham amma vs. Union Union of Indi India, a, AIR AIR 1979 SC1868. 6 Air India vs. Nargesh Mirza, AIR 1981 SC 1829. 7 West Benga Bengal State Electricity Electricity Board vs. D.B, Ghosh, AIR 1985 SC. 4

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k three moth notices or on payment of salary for the corresponding period period in lieu thereof was ex violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The facies, totally arbitrary and thereof violative Supreme Court Court further observed that that it was naked ‘hire and fire’ and and parallel of which was to be found only in the “Henry VII clause” which observed to be banished altogether from employer and employees relationship. In view of this position in law, I am not at all impressed by the argument of the learned government government pleaders that the petitioner petiti oner herein were appointed purely on temporary basis and therefore, their service could be terminated at the sweet will of the government. As a matter of fact, on completion of three years of continuous service, the petitioner had become permanent. In Randhir Singh case, it has been held that equal pay pay for equal work although although not expressly expressly declared to be a fundamental right is clearly a constitutional goal under Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the constitution and can be enforced by the courts in cases of unequal scales of pay based on irrational classification. This principle has been followed in a number of cases and has virtually become a fundamental right. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is equally applicable to temporary or casual employees performing the same duties and function. In Pramod Bhartiya case,8the Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 and flows from it. The rule is as much a part of Article 14 as it is of Article 16(1). In Gopika Ranjan Chowdhary vs. Union of India ,9the armed forces controlled by NEFA were re-organised as a result of which a separate unit known as Central Record and Pay Account Office was created at the head quarters. The Third Pay Commission has recommended two different scale of pay for the ministerial staff, one attached to the headquarters and and other to the Battalions/units. The pay scales of the staff at the headquarters were higher than those of the staff attached to the Battalions/units. It was held that this was discriminatory and and violative of Article 14 as there was was no difference in nature of work, work, duties and responsibilities of the staff working in the Battalions/units and those working at the headquarters. There was also no difference in the qualifications required for the appointment in the two establishments. The service of the staff from Battalions/units is transferable to the headquarters.

8 9

State of Madhaya Pradesh vs. Pram Pramod Bharti Bhartiya, AIR AIR 1993 1993 SC 286:(1993) 1 SCC539. AIR AIR 1990 SC 1212, U.P. U.P.-Rajya -Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Vikas Bank Bank U.P. U.P. vs. Its Its Workmen, Workmen, AIR AIR 1990 SC 495.


CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Article 39(d) of the Constitution The concept of social justice consists of diverse principles essential for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen. It is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak and deprived persons of the society and so elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. The aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation and constitutional goal. Social justice and equality are complementary to each other so that both should maintain their vitality. Rule of law, therefore, is a potent instrument of social justice to bring about equality. 10 The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declared by our constitution to be a fundamental right, but it certainly is a constitutional goal. The directive direct ive principle under Article 39(d) of the constitution proclaim "equal pay for equal work" for both men and women means equal pay for equal work for every one and as between the sexes. Directive Principles have to be read read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 enjoins the state not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state. 11 Article 39 deals with certain principles of policies to be followed by the state. It has been laid down that "equal pay should be given to men and women doing equal work". This article, which apparently envisages equality of pay for men and women, has been applied to enforce equality of pay generally. 12 In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" though not a fundamental right is certainly a constitutional goal and, therefore, capable of enforcement through constitutional remedies under article 32 of the constitution. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is equally

10

Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645. D.C.Jain: .J ain: "Equal Pay for Equal Work: Constit Constituti utional onal Ram Ramification", ification", Award Award Digest, Digest, Jou Journa rnal of Labour Legisla islati tio on, [Vol. XII: II: 4], 1986, p. 109. 12 L.C.Dhingra L.C.Dhingra and Arvinder Singh Dalal: "Equal "Equal Pay for Equal Equal Work Work and the Law" A Criti ritical cal Analysis, Analysis, M.D.U. M.D.U. Law Journal, Journal, 2001, 2001, p. 27-28. 11

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k applicable to persons employed on daily wage basis. They are entitled to the same wages as other permanent employees in the department employed to do the identical work. 13 In Jeet Singh’s case where Supreme Court invalidating the differences of pay scales of drivers in Delhi Police Force and Delhi Administration and Central Government, the court has relied on Article 39(d). 14Thus, workers under different establishments and managements cannot automatically claim parity of payment. Similarly, pay scales m ay differ on the t he basis of educational qualifications. Equally, differences in housing facilities under different employers may not be unjustified and the court may not issue mandamus to allot houses to low income employees in an establishment because such facility is available in another establishment or that the state is a social welfare state. 15 The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be put in a strait jacket. This right, although find place in Article 39, is an accompaniment of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object bought to be achieved is permissible. Accordingly, it has been held in State of U.P. vs. J.P. Chaurasia ,16the Supreme Court that different scale of pay in the same cadre of person doing similar work can be fixed if there is a difference in the nature work done and difference as regards reliability and responsibility. In State of A.P. vs. V.G. Sreenivasa Rao ,

17

the Supreme Court has held that giving higher pay

to a junior in the same cadre is not illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 39(d) if there is rational basis for it. 18 State of Haryana vs. Rajpal Sharma , it has been held that the teachers employed in

privately managed aided schools in State of Haryana are entitled to same salary and dearness allowances as is paid to teachers employed in government school. Federation of A. I. Custom and Central Excise Stenographers Stenographers (Recog.) vs. Union of 19

India, the Supreme Court has emphasized that equal pay must depend on the "nature of the

work done" and not "mere volume of work" as "there may be qualitative difference as regard 13

Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India, (1988) SCC 122. Jee Jeet Sing ingh vs. Mun Municip icipa al Corpo rporati ratio on of Delhi, lhi, (1986) Supp SCC 560. 15 Jag Jagdish ish Prasad vs. M.C M.C.D. (1993) Supp (2) SCC 221. 16 AIR AIR 1989 SC 19. 17 (1989) 2 SCC290. 18 AIR AIR 1997 SC 449 19 AIR AIR 1988 SC 1291: (1988) (1988) 3 SCC 91. 14

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k reliability and responsibility." "Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a different". The Court has further observed: "The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about about equal pay can't can't always be translated translated into a mathematical mathematical formula”.

In Markendeya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ,20difference in pay scale, between graduate supervisors holding degree in Engineering and non-graduate supervisors being diploma and licence holders was upheld. It was held that on the basis of difference in educational qualifications such difference in pay scales was justified and would not offend Article 14 and 16. The Court pointed out that where two classes of employees perform identical or similar duties and carry out the same functions with the same measure of responsibility having the same academic qualifications, they would be entitled to equal pay. "Principle of equal pay pa y for equal work is applicable among equals. It can't be applied to unequal."

21

Thus, daily rated

workers can't be equated with regular employees of the State in the matter of wages. There are differences of qualifications, age, and manner of selection between the two categories of employees.22 Besides, the principle of gender equality in the matter specifically embodied in the Article 39(d), the 'Supreme Court has extracted the general principle of equal pay for equal work by reading Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has emphasized in Randhir Singh, referring to Article 39(d), that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Though, the principle is not expressly declared by the constitution to be a fundamental rights yet it may be deduced by construing Article 14 and 16 in the light of Article 39(d). 23The word 'socialist' in the preamble must at least mean "equal pay for equal work". The Supreme Court has observed in Grih Kalyan Kendra vs. 24

Union of India

"Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental rights but in view of the directive principle of state policy as contain in Article 39(d) of the Constitution "equal pay for equal work" has assume the status of Fundamental Rights in 20

AIR AIR 1989 SC 1308: (1989) (1989) 3 SCC 191 State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.R.Alagappan, AIR 1997 SC 2006. 22 State of Haryana vs. vs. Jasm J asmer Singh. 1996(11) SCC 77: 23 M.P. Jain, ‘Indian ‘Indian Constituti Constitutiona onall Law’, Ed.V. 2004, 2004, p. 1378. 24 AIR AIR 1991 SC 1173, 1176. 21

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k service jurisprudence jurisprudence having regard to the constitution mandate of equality in Article 14 and 16 of the constitution."

In Government of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Hari Hara Prasad P.and others , where there were different rules relating to pay scales and conditions of service governing to sets of employees i.e. (employees of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, employees of various subordinate courts and assistants, typist, steno-typist of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service), the Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is an equitable principle but it is not ordinarily permissible for the court either to go into the nature of the duties duti es of employees while exercising write jurisdiction under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India or on the basis to direct grant parity of pay between two sets of employees who were governed by different rules as regards their pay s cales and conditions of service. In State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others etc , the respondents were daily wagers who were appointed as ledger clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, malicum-chowkidar, filters, patrolmen, surveyors etc. All of them claimed the minimum wages payable under under the pay scale of regular class IV employees from the date of the appointments. The question whether whether or not these persons were were entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of of regular class IV employees. Supreme Court having considered the authorities and submission are of the view that the authorities in the case of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, and Tarun K.Roy,lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of

"equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal workof equal value. The principle of "equal pay pa y for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to t o promote efficiency in administration.


BURDEN OF PROOF It has been held that discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 is the condition precedent for the application of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”. It is further required that the burden of proving such discrimination lies on the claimant. Unless the claimant places sufficient material before it to reach the conclusion to take definite decision, the Court cannot decide the issue of entitlement of “equal pay for equal work”. 25 The claimants would have to establish that that they were rendering rendering the same duties duties being performed by those getting higher higher pay. 26 The Court made it clear that to claim a relief on the basis of equality, it would be for the claimants, to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination, before becoming eligible to claim rights on par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. 27 As regards the equation of posts, the Apex Court has consistently held it to be purely an administrative function, to be left to the executive government and must be determined by experts bodies like Pay Commission. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration, or that the basis of classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust. 28 A mere nomenclature is not enough to come to a conclusion that the claimant is doing the same work as done by the others. Equality is not based on designation or the nature of work done but based on several factors. The same amount amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. Merely on the basis of source of recruitment, denial of equal pay to persons performing the same duties is held improper. 29 It is for the claimant to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant for the purpose of wages. wages. 25

State Bank of India v. M.R.Ganesh Babu, AIR 2002 SC 1955. Dr. R.N.Sha R.N.Sharma v. Universi University ty of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, 1997 (5) SLR (Raj.)369. (Raj.)369. 27 Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jag J agannath annath Maruti M aruti Kondhare, AIR 199 1996 6 SC 289 2898 8 28 Union of India v. Dineshan, AIR 2008 SC 1028 29 N.Y.K.S N.Y.K.S v. Rajesh Mohan, Mohan, AIR AIR 2OO7SC2509 26

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k Requirements of selection in case of a daily wager are not as rigorous, for he is not subject to disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed for t he regular employee. A daily wager cannot claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed. He is entitled to be paid minimum wages admissible to such employees as prescribed. 30

Equal Equal pay for equal equal work- Not an abstract abstract doctrine doctrine It is now well settled that “equal pay for equal work” is a fundamental right. But, the question whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay, depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Therefore, if the classification made in relation to the scales of pay is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to that object sought to be achieved , the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” will have no application.31 32

Federation of All India India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers Stenographers v. Union of India. India.

The Supreme Court upheld the differentiation in the pa y scales and ruled that although “equal pay for equal work” was a fundamental right, but equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done and that it could not be judged by the mere volume of work. There might be qualitative difference as regards reliability, responsibility and confidentiality. The Supreme Court, therefore, justified, the differentiation on the grounds of dissilimarity of the responsibility, confidentiality and the relationship with public, etc. The classification was held to be based on rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 33

Mewa Ram v. All India India Institute of Medical Medical Sciences

The Supreme Court held that it was open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different posts having regard to educational qualification, duties and responsibilities of the post. It is not an abstract doctrine. It has been observed that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities expected of an incumbent, would be a value

30

State of Haryana v. Tilak Tilak Raj, Raj, AIR AIR 2003 SC 2658 Supreme Supreme Court Employees Welfare Associati Association on v. Union of India, India, AIR AIR 1990 SC 334 32 AIR AIR 1988 SC 1291 33 AIR AIR 1989 SC 1256 31

Equal Equal pay pay for Equal wor work k judgment of the authority concerned, which if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court. 34

State of U.P v. J.P.Chaurasia

The Apex Court that the rule of “equal pay for equal work” had no no mechanical application application in every case of similar work. Holding that the quality of work of newcomers, the Apex Court upheld two pay scales in same cadre of persons, performing same or similar duties, as a reasonable classification and had a rational nexus with the objects thereof. 35

State of Haryana v. H.C.S Personal Staff Association

The Apex Court held that pay parity between the Personal Assistants In State Secretariat and Personal Assistants in Central Secretariat could not not be claimed merely on the basis basis of identity of designation. Ordering pay parity without comparing the nature of duties and responsibilities of the P.A.s in the Central Secretariat and the P.A.s in the State Civil Secretariat, the eligibility qualification fixed for their recruitment could not be sustained, could not be sustained, the Apex Court ruled. The Court also held though a Constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government, the claim of “equal pay for equal work”, was not a fundamental right vested in any employee. S.C. Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that

discrimination was condition precedent for the application of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work.” So long as it was not a case of discrimination under Article 14, the abstract doctrine as envisaged by Article 39 had no manner of application.

34 35

AIR AIR 1989 SC 1203 AIR AIR 2002 SC 2589


BIBLIOGRAPHY ∑

∑

A.S.Bhatnagar: Guide to Departmental Problems Enquiries, Punishment and appeal Narinder kumar: Law relating to government Servicesw and management of Discipline Proceedings

∑

A.S.Ramchandaran: A.S.Ramchandaran: law relating to departmental Enquiries

Deepak Service PDF

Recommend Documents