The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16222 of 2018 Prasar Bharati Board Casting Corporation of India & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, (CGC), Sr. Panel Counsel, Union of India -versus- Goutam Ballav Mohanty & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Dilip Ku Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 16.08.2024 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India (Doordarshan), appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. Dilip Ku. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties (No.1 and 2). 2. By means of this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek to set aside the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT” or “Tribunal”) dated 04.05.2018 passed in O.A. No. 533 of 2015. WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 1 of 9 3.
Legal Reasoning
The background facts of the case are that the Opposite Parties, who were the Petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 533 of 2015, have been employed as casual lighting assistants on a daily wage basis. They received an initial wage of Rs. 389/- per day and later claimed entitlement to revised tariffs similar to employees awaiting regularisation. The O.Ps. highlighted that the Petitioners had issued memorandums in 2011, 2012, and 2013, which enhanced wages to Rs. 561/-, Rs. 750/-, and Rs. 840/- per day, respectively for the casuals engaged in various roles in Doordarshan Kendra on casual assignment basis awaiting regularisation under Regularisation scheme of 09.06.1992 & 17.03.1994. Despite these memorandums, the Opposite Parties continued to receive the tariff of Rs. 389 per day as per the 2006 memorandum and argued that similarly placed individuals were enjoying the benefits of the wage revisions outlined in the said
Legal Reasoning
memorandums. The Opposite Parties submitted representations to the Petitioners, but while their representations were pending, they filed O.A. No. 187/2015 before the CAT. The CAT directed the Petitioners to dispose of the representations with a speaking order, which the Petitioners did. However, dissatisfied with the outcome, the Opposite Parties filed O.A. No. 533 of 2015 before the CAT, challenging the decision. Upon receiving notice from the CAT, the Petitioners filed a counter affidavit. Subsequently, on 04.05.2018, the CAT issued an order directing that the wages of the Opposite Parties should be enhanced and that they should receive equal pay as those covered under the regularisation schemes of 1992 and 1994. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India (Doordarshan) submits that the learned Tribunal did not adequately WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 2 of 9 recognise the differences in employment requirements, promotional avenues, and the nature of duties between regular post holders and temporary or casual workers. These distinctions are critical, as they justify variations in pay and other benefits. Mr. Mohanty highlights that the Opposite Parties, who were denied wage enhancement by the competent authority, were found ineligible for regularisation under the applicable scheme. The Opposite Parties did not challenge this denial on the grounds of arbitrariness but instead sought wage enhancement alone before the learned Tribunal. He further emphasises that, according to the guidelines, only Doordarshan Kendras are empowered to determine eligibility. In this case, the Opposite Parties were engaged only due to an interim order of this Hon’ble Court and are not comparable to other workmen. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties belong to a separate class of camera assistants, engaged on an assignment basis by the Regional News Unit (RNU), which is governed by different memorandums and directives from the Director General News. Therefore, the Opposite Parties’ claim for parity with other workers is misplaced and not applicable. Mr. Mohanty, concludes his argument with the submission that considering that the posts of Lighting Assistants are under consideration for abolition and that the learned Tribunal overlooked the difference between casual workers who have incidentally worked for long periods and those engaged under the regularisation schemes of 1992 and 1994, the impugned order is incorrect and need to be set aside. 5. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, argues that the Petitioners have wrongly challenged the impugned order passed by the CAT, which held that the Opposite Parties are entitled to the same pay as casual employees awaiting regularisation WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 3 of 9 under the schemes of 1992 and 1994, based on the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The CAT directed that the necessary orders be passed within eight weeks. Mr. Mohanty argues that as per the Doordarshan Manual, the Opposite Parties were engaged as Lighting Assistants specifically to assist the cameramen, without whom the cameramen cannot effectively perform their duties during shooting. The role of the Lighting Assistants is therefore integral to the shooting process, as evidenced by the manual and the fact that some Lighting Assistants engaged before the Opposite Parties were regularised in 2005 under the same schemes of 1992 and 1994. The Opposite Parties have been performing the same work as those who have been regularised, which justifies their claim for equal pay. Additionally, they have also obtained cameraman training and certification, further demonstrating their capability and the similarity of their roles to those who have been regularised. Furthermore, the learned counsel highlights that the importance of the Lighting Assistants’ role is underscored by the office order dated 30.09.2022 of Prasar Bharati Doordarshan, Bhubaneswar, which attached two MTS persons to assist the cameraman and Lighting Assistants, indicating the critical nature of the Lighting Assistants’ work in the field of shooting. This order, annexed as Annexure A/1, supports their contention that their work is entitled to wage parity with those awaiting regularisation under the earlier schemes. Mr. Mohanty concludes that, the CAT’s order should be upheld, as it correctly applies the principle of “equal pay for equal work” to the Opposite Parties. 6. The Petitioners were directed by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022 to submit an affidavit detailing the nature of work performed by Cameramen and Lighting Assistants. In response, the WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 4 of 9 Petitioners submitted an affidavit attaching two pages purported to be from Doordarshan manual annexed as Annexure-1 written as “Working of Doordarshan Kendra”, which outline the roles of Cameraman Grade-II and Lighting Assistants in clauses 4.2.9 and 4.2.20, respectively. The aforesaid document annexed has neither been shown as manual/rule/guideline having force of law but allegedly followed in practice reflecting the differences in roles and responsibilities of Cameramen and Lighting Assistants, yet, the comparison cannot be drawn against the position of present Opposite Parties from that of casual employees awaiting regularisation. However, in any way, it is important to emphasise that the role of the Lighting Assistant, as described in the said manual, includes assistance to cameraman in loading and unloading film cameras. This indicates a level of responsibility and involvement in the production process and the lack of clarity and detail in the Petitioners’ submission undermines their argument and fails to convincingly demonstrate that the roles of the camera assistants are sufficiently distinct to justify a difference in pay. This failure to provide a clear and detailed affidavit likely weakens the Petitioners’ position and raises doubts about their commitment to a thorough and fair evaluation of the roles in question. 7. Annexure-A/4, which is a memorandum dated 22.03.2013, clearly states that Lighting Assistants/Lightman, etc. are entitled to a revised pay rate of Rs. 840/- per day/per shift, effective from 04.12.2012. This memorandum also specifies that arrear payments will be made with prospective effect. Notably, this order applies to those casual employees who are awaiting regularisation under the Regularisation Schemes of 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994. The records, as presented in the Annexure-A/5 series, reveal that O.P. No. 1 has WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 5 of 9 been employed on a casual basis since 1992, and O.P. No. 2 since 1993, both in roles that include assisting cameramen and operating lights. Over the years, they have consistently been paid at revised rates whenever they were reappointed. However, in 2015, as evidenced by the Annexure-5 series, these same Opposite Parties were reappointed at a significantly lower rate of Rs. 389/- per day, despite the 2013 memorandum stipulating a rate of Rs. 840/- per day. 8. This discrepancy raises a significant issue. If the Petitioners had no objection to paying an enhanced fees in previous years, there should be no reason for the sudden reduction in pay in 2015. The past payment practices establish a precedent that suggests the Opposite Parties are entitled to the revised rates as per the 2013 memorandum. The Petitioners’ failure to adhere to this precedent without providing a compelling justification can be seen as arbitrary and unfair. The inconsistency in payment practices not only undermines the credibility of the Petitioners’ argument but also suggests a potential violation of the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” especially given the history of compliance with revised pay rates in previous years. 9. It is incumbent to note that the Opposite Parties, despite not being regularised, have been performing the same duties as regular employees since a very long time. The failure to pay them equally for equal work is a violation of this fundamental principle. It is emphasised that continuing casual employment for too long without regularisation would be unjust and contrary to the constitutional goals of our socialist polity. The Opposite Parties have been employed on a casual basis for over two decades, performing duties that are integral to the operations of Doordarshan. The refusal or failure to pay them WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 6 of 9 the revised rates as mandated by the 2013 memorandum, constitutes a breach of the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The Petitioners’ actions in this regard are inconsistent with ensuring fairness in employment practices, and their failure to adhere to the laid down principle of “equal pay for equal work” further exacerbates the injustice faced by the Opposite Parties. 10. The Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176, has held as follows – to like). The “54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of the principle, have been India. The parameters of summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the temporary legal position, relating employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 7 of 9 Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.” 11. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has long been recognised by the Hon’ble Apex Court as a Constitutional goal, rooted in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court has consistently upheld this principle as a necessary measure to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace. The principle is not merely a theoretical concept; it is a vital and vigorous doctrine that has been accepted globally and has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in numerous decisions. 12. In this landmark ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even daily wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, casual workers, and contractual employees, who are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, but whose services are continuously utilized by the State or its instrumentalities over a significant period, are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, excluding allowances. This entitlement arises on the assumption that the work they perform is of a perennial nature and that they have served for a sufficiently long period, thereby creating an equitable right to fair compensation. 13. In the instant case, the contention raised by the Petitioners that the Opposite Parties were engaged on a casual basis as Lighting Assistants, and therefore are not entitled to the benefits of regular employees, is untenable. The Petitioners argue that since the Opposite Parties were employed on a daily wage basis and were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, they are not entitled to the relief of equal pay as claimed in this petition. However, this argument fails to acknowledge the consistent legal principles established by the Hon’ble WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 8 of 9 Supreme Court regarding the rights of employees engaged in such capacities. The Opposite Parties have been appointed on casual basis every now and then as Lighting Assistants since 1992/1993, performing duties that are integral to the functioning of Doordarshan. The Petitioners’ claim, that the Opposite Parties are not entitled to regular pay because they are casual employees, is directly contradicted by the principles laid down in Jagjit Singh (supra). The consistent and prolonged engagement of the Opposite Parties in the same work as regular employees creates an equitable right to be compensated fairly. 14.
Decision
In view of the above, the Opposite Parties’ claim for equal pay for equal work is well-founded, and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting them such relief is in accordance with the law. The Petitioners are directed to comply with the directions of the CAT within a period of 1 (one) month. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (S. K. Sahoo) Judge AKPradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 16-Aug-2024 14:44:57 WPC No. 16222 of 2018 Page 9 of 9