STATE OF PUNJAB & Anr. v. SURJIT SINGH & Ors.

12 S.C.R. 394 STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. SURJIT SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2003) AUGUST 4, 2009 A B [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Labour laws - Doctrine of equal pay for equal work - Applicability of - Relevant factors for determination - Held: c It depends upon equal work of equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity - There should be strict pleadings and pmof of various factors - On facts, daily wagers not entitled to equal pay for equal work on par with the regular employees D holding similar posts, even though they have worked for long - While appointing daily wagers recruitment rules not followed nor advertisement issued - Equality clause should be invoked only where parties are similarly situated and orders passed in their favour is legal and not illegal - Constitution E of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 39(d). _, ~'" .,. " F Respondents were appointed as daily wagers in different capacities in the department of the State Government. Some of them were appointed after their names were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange. Respondents were paid wages in terms of the offer of appointment and their names were maintained in the Muster Roll. They have worked for number of years. They claimed their benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' on par with their counterparts in different departments G who were similarly situated and had been granted relief of regular pay scale. High Court allowed the writ applications and granted minimum of pay scale with . - dearness allowance to the respondent. Hence the present appeals. .. H 394 ...... STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. SURJIT SINGH & ORS . 395 Dismissing C.A. No.7466 of 2003 and allowing the A other appeals, the Court HELD: 1.

In the constitutional scheme, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' has a definite place in view of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with B Article 14 thereof. [Para 19) [409-C-D]

1.

The grant of the benefit of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' depends upon a large number of factors including equal work, equal value, source and c manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity. The court insists on strict pleadings and proof of various factors. How the said principle is to be applied in different fact situation is the only question. [Paras 27, 29 and 41] [416-E-F; 418-A; 426- H; 427-A] D

1.

The counsel may or may not be entirely correct in projecting three purported different views of this Court having regard to the accepted principle of law that ratio of a decision must be culled out from reading it in its E entirety and not from a part thereof. The decisions of large benches are binding. [Paras 27 and 41) [416-E-F; 426-H]

1.

In *Charanjit Singh's case, the judge, speaking for the Three Judge Bench, used the word 'may' in regard to the source of recruitment but the same has to be considered as a relevant factor as the operative part of the judgment shows. Charanjit Singh, therefore, does not militate against the other decisions of this Court where the mode and manner of appointment has been considered to be a relevant factor for the purpose of invocation of the said doctrine. [Para 30] [418-H; 419-A- B] F G

1.

While making appointments, the recruitment rules had not been followed. There had been no H j,.. _, .,,. 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A advertisement. How and in what manner the names were called from the employment exchange has not been disclosed. Ordinarily a large number of people would not be interested in applying for appointment against a Class Ill or Class IV post so long the appointment is contractual. B Interviews were also taken by a Committee which was not competent therefor as appointment in the post of Clerk and above were required to be made by the Public Service Commission. [Para 36] [424-D-E]

1.

The High Court noticed that this Court in several C decisions had arrived at an opinion that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied blindly but chose to rely upon the decision of this Court in **Dhirendra Chamo/i & Anr. v. State of U.P's case. (Para 40] [426-G] D

1.

The submission that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents. The equality clause contained in Article. 14 E should be invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favour is legal and not illegal. It has a positive concept. [Para 45] (426- F-G]

1.

The interest of justice would be subserved if the F State is directed to examine the cases of the respondents by appointing an Expert Committee as to whether the principles of law laid down, viz., as to whether the respondents satisfy the factors for invocation of the decision in Charanjit Singh's case in its entirety including G the question of appointment in terms of the recruitment rules have been followed. [Para 44] (427-F-G] *State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321; Official Liquidator v. Oayanand & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1 - H relied on. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. SURJIT SINGH & ORS. 397 ~ Secretary, State of Kamataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & A Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, distinguished. ~ Ranbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 1998 (2) Service Cases Today 189; Gurcharan Singh Kah/on & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. C.W.P. No. 6162 of 1995 decided on B 18.4.2009 by High Court of Punjab & Haryana; S.C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 279; Government of WB. v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 347; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Devinder Singh & Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 595; State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC c