AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM & ORS versus NAVIN KUMAR SAINI ETC.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 29-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1173 
AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM & ORS 
v. 
NAVIN KUMAR SAINI ETC. 
(CIVIL A.PPEAL N0.9487 OF 2010) 
OCTOBER 29, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEOI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.) 
Labour Laws: 
Work-charge helpers - Claiming regularization and pay 
scale of Junior Clerks - HELD: There being qualitative 
difference as regards liability and responsibility, mere volume 
A 
B 
of work would not be relevant - Further, the plea of equal pay 
for equal work is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution, 0 
therefore, it was incumbent upon the workmen to establish that 
they were performing the work of Junior Clerk under orders of 
a competent authority - This has not been done - However, 
the workmen were entitled to be considered for regularization 
and the pay scale of Junior Clerk from the date their juniors E . 
were granted the benefits under the regularization scheme· 
formulated by the employer - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 14 and 16 - Equal pay for equal work. 
The respondent-workmen were appointed by the 
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant-Nigam as Helpers F 
on a consolidated salary, w.e.f. 28.11.1979, for a period 
of three months, but they were allowed to continue till 
they qualified in a limited competitive examination and 
were appointed in the regular pay scale of Junior Clerk 
by an order dated 26.6.1984. Later, a Selection Committee G 
was constituted for regularization of such work charge 
employees who had completed two years service as such 
up to 31.3.1983, but the claim of the respondents was not 
considered. The respondents raised a grievance claiming 
1173 
H 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A regularization as Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.12.1979 and regular 
pay scale of the post of clerk from 1.4.1982 to 26.6.1984. 
The Labour Court did not find fault with the decision of 
the employers not to regularize the respondents w.e.f. 
1.12.1979, but directed that they would be entitled to 
B wages of Junior Clerk from the said date. In the writ 
petition filed by the employers, the single Judge of the 
High Court held that the respondents would be entitled 
to only the notional benefit of the pay scale of Junior 
Clerk w.e.f .. 1.12.1979, but not to actual arrears. The 
c Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order. 
Aggrieved, the employers filed the appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The plea of equal pay for equal work is 
D founded on Article 14 of the Constitution, hence it was 
incumbent upon the workmen to establish that they were 
performing the work of the Junior Clerk under orders of 
a competent authority. Nothing has been brought on 
record by the workmen to show that they were asked to 
E perform the function of a Junior Clerk by any competent 
authority. Further, the workmen were admittedly engaged 
as helpers in work charge establishment and in that view 
of the matter for applying the principle of equal pay for 
equal work, mere the volume of work shall not be relevant, 
F there being qualitative difference as regards the liability 
and responsibility. The workmen were not entitled to the 
scale of pay of the Junior Clerk even on notional basis 
from the date of their engagement as helpers. [para 11) 
[1180-B-D] 
G 
H 
1.2 As regards the claim of the respondent-workmen 
for scale of Junior Clerk from 1.4.1982, they cannot be 
allowed to suffer only because they qualified in the 
written examination and were appointed as Junior Clerks 
by order dated 26.6.1984. The employer considered the 
AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM v. NAVIN KUMAR 1175 
SAINI ETC. 
cases of such work charge employees who had 
A 
completed two years of service as work charge 
employees. A large number of workmen like the 
respondents, and even persons junior to them, were 
regularised as Junior Clerks with effect fro,m 1.4.19!32 and 
given the regular scale of pay. The respondents 
B 
appeared before the Selection Committee constituted for 
this purpose on 27.8.1987 but their cases were not 
considered on the ground that they had already been 
appointed as Lower Division Clerks. The respondents 
ought to have been considered for regularisation as c 
Lower Division Clerk when the case of other persons 
similarly situated was considered by the Selection 
Committee. [para 12 and 15] [1180-E-G; 1182-F-G] 
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another vs. Nanu 
Ram and others, 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 544 = 2006 (12) 
D 
sec 494 - referred to. 
1.3 The appellants are di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.