BHAGWATI PRASAD AND ORS. versus DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 15-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
BHAGWATI PRASAD AND ORS. 
v. 
DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
DECEMBER 15, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 39(d), 14 & 16: Daily rated 
workers of Delhi Mineral Development Corporation performing duties of 
Group 'D' posts-Whether entitled to equal pay for equal work-
Whether entitled to regularisation and promotion. 
Civil Services: Daily rated workers discharging duties effectively 
over a long period-Suitability of for regularisation and confirmation-
Requirement of initial minimum qualifications-Whether could be 
insisted upon. 
The petitioners, daily-rated workers of the respondent-Corpora-
tion appointed between 1983 and 1986, songht a writ of mandamns to 
regularise their services in the respective units and payment of wages at 
par with regnlarly appointed employees of the respondent performing 
the same or similar duties. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The Industrial Tribunal, which was directed by the Court to 
examine . the matter, found that all the petitfoners/workmen were 
performing same or similar duties as were performed by the incum-
bents of Gronp 'D' posts of the respondent-Corporatibn.and concluded 
that on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined in Article 
39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution they were entitled 
F 
to equal pay for equal work in relation to the regular employees. It 
further held that non-regularisation due to uncertainty of the contract 
was only a pretence which was not valid in law, and.that reversion of 
some of the petitioners for lack of requ,isite educational qualification 
was discriminatory, arbitrary and an abuse of power by the 
management. 
G 
The respondent assailed the findings on merits pointing out 
various contentions raised in its pleading, objections and the documents 
filed before the Tribunal. It also contended that it had not consented to 
dispense with adducing oral evidence, and that despite the direction of 
the CourtJo submit .a preliminary report the Tribunal was-wrong in 
H 
513 
514 
SUPREME COURT REIQRTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A stating that the respondent had agreed that the Tribunal would send the 
final report. 
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court, 
HELD: l. The petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with 
B the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or dis-
charge similar duties in the respondent-Corporation, and are enti-
tled to the scale of pay and allowances revised from time to time for 
the said posts. [518D] 
2. The statement of facts recorded by a Court or Quasi-judicial 
Tribunal in its proceedings as regards the matters which transpired 
C during the hearing before it would not be permitted to be assailed as 
incorrect unless steps are taken before the same forum. It may be open 
to a party to bring such statement to the notice of the Court /Tribunal 
and to have it deleted or amended. It was not, therefore, open to the 
respondent in the instant case to say that the proceedings recorded by 
o the Tribunal were incorrect. [517C-D] 
3. Practical experience would always aid a person ta effectively 
discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess his suitability. The 
initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different 
posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time 
E of the initial entry into service. [517H; 518A] 
In the instant case, the petitioners were appointed between the 
period 1983 and 1986 and eversince, they have been working and had 
gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to 
the posts held by them. Once the appointments were made and they 
F 
were allowed to work for a considerable length of time as such, it would 
be hard and harsh to deny them confirmation in the respective posts on 
the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. 
Three years' experience ignoring artificial break in service for short 
period/periods created by the respondent in the circumstances, would 
be sufficient for confirmation. ~ince the petitioners satisfy the require-
G ment of three years' service so calculated, 40 of the senior-most of 
them should be regularised with immediate effect and the remain-
ing 118 should be regularised in a phased manner before April I, 
1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing 
orders. IS17G; 518B-DJ 
H 
4. Those of the petitioners who were ousted from service 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.