LexHARBANS LAL & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HARBANS LAL & ORS. v. ~ STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. , AUGUST I, 1989 , B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32, 39(d)-Equal pay for equal work-Carpenters in Wood Working Centre, Himachal Pradesh State Handicrafts Corporation-Whether entitled to claim wages pay- able to their counterparts in regular service. c The .petitioners employed as daily rated carpenters at the Wood ~ Working Centre of the Himachal Pradesh State Handicrafts Corpora- ·-+ lion sought enforcement of their fundamental right to have "equal pay for equal work" in terms paid to their counterparts in regular services, or in the alternative, the minimum wages prescribed by the Deputy D Commissioner for like categories of workmen. The petitioners' claim was resisted by the respondents. Their case was that the unit where the petitioners were working was a factory registered under the Factotjes Act, that they were treated as industrial workmen and given all benefits due to them under the various labour ,K. E legislations, that the Government had not fixed the minimum wages payable to the workmen engaged in the Corporation or other like industries but the Corporation had adopted for its workmen the minimum wages payable for similar work in the construction industry, and that there were no regular employees of the petitioners' categories in its establishment and, as such, the question of payment to them the F pay admissible to regular employees does not arise. ~ Dismissing the writ petition, HELD: I. Unless it is shown that there is a discrimination amongst the same set of employees by the same master in the same G establishment, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot he enforced. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management, or even in establishments in different geographical locatiom though owned by the same master. [668B l x In the instant case, the petitioners were employed by a company H incorporated under the Companies Act. They cannot claim wages pay- ... 662 •• HARBANS LAL v. STATE OF H.P. 663 able to their counterparts In government service. [6'8C] Meva Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr., [1989] 1SCC235, referred to. Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] I SCC 618, explained. 2. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical· application in every case of similar work. No two jobs by the mere nomenclature or by the volume of work performed can be rated as '1..cequal. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. It requires the • . consideration of various dimensions of the job. The accuracy required A B by the job and the dexterity it entails may differ from job to job. It C cannot be evaluated by the mere averments in the self-serving affidavits or counter-affidavits of the parties. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by expert body. (6660, 6680-E] In the instant case, however, the Corporation bad no regularly employed carpenters. Even assuming that the petitioners' jobs were D comparable with the counterparts in Government service they could not enforce the right to equal pay for equal work. [667G, 668A] State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, [1989) I SCC 121; Meva Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr., l1989] 2 SCC 235 and Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Steno- E graphers (Recognised) v. Union of India, [1988) 3 SCC 91, referred to. 3. The order issued by the Deputy Commissioner on March 20, 1 1986 in exercise of his powers under the H.P. Financial Rules pres- \. cribing minimum wages was applicable only to skilled and unskilled f workers in Class IV employees in Government service. The benefit of the rates prescribed under that order cannot be extended to the petitioners unless the Government makes it applicable to the employees of the Corporation. I 668F -G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 548 of 1987. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). M.C. Dhingra for the Petitione.rs. F G Kapil Sibal, K.G. Bhagat, A.K. Ganguli, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, H A B c D E F G H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1989] 3 S.C.R. Ms. Aruna Mathur, A. Mariarputham, Harminder Lal and Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. The petitioners are carpenters !st and 2nd grade employed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.