LexGARHWAL JAL SANSTHAN KARMACHARI UNION AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B GARHWAL JAL SANSTHAN KARMACHARI UNION AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. MARCH 27, 1997 [K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, .1.T.J Sen,ice Law : C U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975: Sections 3, 14, 16 to 18, 24 and 31. Pmity in employment-Equal pay for equal work-P1inciplr:-Ap- plicability of-Some similmity in duties and functions of two organisa- tions-Held : Such similmity by itself not enough to invoke the jJlinciple if D there was qualitative difference in the duties, functions and responsibilities in the two mganisations. E Resolution-Passed by employ~es' wzion--Approval of-State Govem- ment in exercise of its discretion did not approve of the resolution-Held : Exercise of discretion not invalid. Parity in employment-Equal pay for equal wor/r-Plinciplr:-Ap- plicability of-Held : There were inherent difficulties in application of the p1inciple--Constitution of India, 1950, A1ts. 14 and 16. The respondent-State created Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthans under F the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. Jal Nigam had jurisdiction all over the territory of the State whereas Jal Sansthans had jurisdiction over the local area or any part thereof, of one or more local bodies. The appellant-Union, which comprised of employees belonging to a Jal Sansthan claimed parity in pay with the employees of Jal Nigam. The said G claim was based on a resolution passed by Jal Sansthan approving parity in pay with the employees of Jal Nigam. The resolution was sent to the State Government for its approval, but the State Government did not accord permission to implement the said resolution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Union Hence this appeal. H On behalf of the appellant-Union it was contended that the nature 376 GARHWALJALSANSTHANKARMACHARIUNION v. STATE 377 of work discharged by the employees of Ja.l Sansthan and Jal Nigam being A similar there was no justification to deny parity of pay; and that the State Government was not justified in refusing approval of the resolution passed by the appellant-Union. Dismissing the appeal, this Court B HELD : 1.1. Jal Nigam has got a wider jurisdiction than Jal Sansthan has, although some of the duties and obligations are similar. The nature of work discharged by Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan is also to some extent similar but having regard to the scheme of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, it cannot be said that both of them discharged the C same duties and functions. The distinction between them is again a noticed from the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act wherein Jal Nigam is empowered to call for such reports and information from Jal Sansthan or local body whenever it may be considered necessary and after consider- ing the reports and information may issue such directions to Jal Sansthan or local body as may be found necessary. Further, Section 17 confers D supervisory powers on Jal Nigam. [380-B-C] 1.2. Some similarity in the duties and functions of two organisations by itself is not a decisive factor to hold that the employees of Jal Sansthan are entitled for the parity of pay ~cales with the employees of Jal Nigam. E It has also to be seen whether there is any qualitative commonality between the two organisations. It is clear from the scheme of the Act, the duties and functions assigned to the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthans are in many respect qualitatively different. Jal Nigam is a corporation fully controlled by the State and extending the jurisdiction all over the territory of the State whereas the duties and functions of Jal Sansthans are F restricted to local area and under the control of local bodies. The material produced shows a qualitative difference in the duties and functions dis- charged by the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan and, therefore, the claim of equal pay for equal work on the plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution is without any foundation. The G principle of equal pay for equal 'work would not be applicable where qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities is apparent. (381-G-H] State of M.P. & Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 53~, relied on. H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R. A Babu Lal, Convenor& Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Anr., B (1994] Suppl. 2 SCC 633 and Kshatrapal Shanna & Ors. v. Lt. Governor & Ors., (1993] Suppl. 3 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.