LexSTATE OF KERA LA versus B.RENJITH KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1078
-
A
STATE OF
KERA LA
•
~
V.
B.RENJITH KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 2004)
B
JUNE 5,2008
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,
JJ.]
.,.
Service Law - Pay parity - Equal pay for equal work -
c Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal initially granted pay
at par with the District Judges - Pay parity denied after revi-
sion of pay of judicial officers as per recommendations of
National Judicial Commission (Sheffy Commission) - Pro-
priety of - Held: Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals
D were entitled to the pay parity with the District Judges - It was
not correct to deny the parity having accepted and recognized
•
the same for more than 30 years - The two categories cannot
•
be treated differently as the nature of their functions and du-
ties and qualification for appointment are same - Denial of
E
equal pay for equal work would be violative of Fundamental
Rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Constitution of India 1950-Articles 234, 14, 16 and 39(d) -
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section l(A){as amended by
Industrial Disputes (Kera/a Amendment) Act [Act No. 28 of
F
1961}
Doctrines - Doctrine of equal pay for equal work - na-
ture of - held: The doctrine was originally propounded as part
of Directive Principles of State Policy but in view of Constitu-
tional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimina-
G tion in service jurisprudence, it has assumed the status of Fun-
damental Right - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 16
and 39(d).
Respondents were appointed as Presiding Officer
"'
of the Industrial Tribunals. Prior to year 1998 State Gov-
H
1078
..._
STATE OF KERALA v. B.RENJITH KUMAR
1079
..,.
& ORS .
•
ernment had granted them pay scales at par with the Dis-
A
trict Judges. In 1998 National Judicial Pay Commission
(Shetty Commission) recommended pay revision to Dis-
trict Judges and members of Subordinate Judiciary with
retrospective effect i.e. March, 1996. By G.O. dated
30.5.1998, Judicial Officers were granted interim relief at B
~ v
the rate of 35% of the pay. Since the same was not given
to the respondents, they approached High Court. They
were granted interim relief as per the direction of the High
..,..
Court. The state Government by G.O. (MS) No. 231/2001/
Home dated 12.12.2001 decided to grant pay scale to the c
members of the judiciary as per the recommendations of
the Shetty Commission. The respondents, since were
denied the said benefit, made representation requesting
for grant of same scales of pay as that of the District
,,...
Judges in the State. The State Government by its order D
~
(Exbt PB) granted the pay scale of Rs. 16, 300-400-18,300
w.e.f. March 1, 1997 while the District Judges had been
granted the scale of Rs. 16,750-400-19,150-420-20,500.
Respondents filed writ petition challenging the or-
der. State Government contended that since the Presid-
E
ing Officers of the lntlustrial tribunals were not appointed
under Article 234 of the Constitution of India, they are not
entitled to same scales of pay as that of the Higher Judi-
ciary. High Court negating the contention of the State al-
lowed the writ petition and directed the State to modify
F
its order so as to treat the writ petitioners at par with the
District Judges in the matter of time scale as well as se-
lection grade. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned judgment warrants no in-
G
-
....
terference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of
jurisdiction could be shown by the appellant-State. High
Court held that even the Presiding Officers of the Indus-
trial Tribunals are not outside the ambit of the Constitu-
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 9 S.C.R.
A tion as the protection of rules framed under Article 309 as
also under Article 311 of the Constitution is available to
them. The State Government had granted pay scale at
par with that of the District Judges before the recommen-
dations of the pay scales of the District Judges by the
B Shetty Commission by which District Judges were placed
in higher scales which benefit has been denied to the
Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals merely on the
ground that the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribu-
nal are not appointed under Article 233 of the Constitu-
C tion of India nor they are appointed to the Judicial Ser-
vices of a State under Article 234 of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.