SC: Doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' has its limitations, Contractual Workers can't claim Pay Parity with Govt. Servants

  

The Supreme Court has recently decided on whether whether the principle of negative equality shall be applicable in a case where the other employees were wrongly granted the benefits and/or the employees who are claiming the parity shall have to establish their rights independently to get the particular benefits?

While dealing with an appeal wherein the pay scale of the daily wage workers was enhanced by mistake by the zonal branches and the same was ratified and recovery was sought but the section still seek the benefits granted, the Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah observed that there are limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work'

"As per the settled proposition of law equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect having adverse consequences."

 The Court made an important observation that Contractual Workers can't claim Pay Parity with Govt. Employees.To this, in view of the present case, the Court noted:

"Being daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board, they cannot claim as of right similar treatment as Government employees. The Respondent – Board is an independent entity and it might have its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government. The State Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put at par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial resources."

 The Court referred to the recent ruling of Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia, 2021 Latest Caselaw 270 SC and held that the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees.

Agruements

Learned Counsel for the appellants had submitted that once the parent Resolution came to be adopted by the Board, all successive amended resolutions shall be applicable and shall have to be implemented by the Board, being a statutory body, it has to adopt all subsequent policy decisions/resolutions in the same manner in which the parent Resolution was adopted.

It was further submitted that Board's decision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"Out of total 3348 daily rated employees, only 474 daily rated employees like the original writ petitioners are denied the benefits of 1991 and 1992 Resolutions."

It was the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that earlier the service of water supply and sewerage was under the control of Government of Gujarat and only on formation of the Board under the Act such activity was transferred to the Board. It is undertaking the activities which earlier the Government was performing.

"The Board is the creation of the statute and is undertaking the activities which earlier were carried out by the State Government and the same is funded by the State Government, the daily rated employees of the Board like the original writ petitioners are entitled to the same benefits which are available to the daily rated employees of the other departments of the State Government."

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent-Board opposed the above and submitted:

"As in some of the zonal offices though not entitled, the daily rated employees were granted the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 inadvertently and mistakenly, the same came to be withdrawn and even recovery is sought. Thereafter there is no question of granting any benefit to the remaining daily rated employees."

It was submitted that even otherwise the original writ petitioners have to establish their right to get the benefit under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 independently. It was submitted that concept of equality cannot be allowed in the present case to perpetuate one mistake for other daily wagers.'

Conclusion

The Court noted:

"In the present case a conscious decision has been taken by the Board not to adopt the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. Even the State Government has refused to extend the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. The Board has taken a conscious decision considering the additional financial burden on the Board if the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 are allowed."

 The Court upheld the decision of Division Bench of High Court:

"At the cost of repetition, it is observed that unless and until the Board has specifically adopted the Government Resolutions of 1991 27 WWW.LIVELAW.IN and 1992 like adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the daily rated employees/employees of the Respondent – Board shall not be entitled to any benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Board to grant the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court."

"they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not entitled to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity."

"in a case of appointments or pay-scales, Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State has committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure