STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus BALARAM SAHU AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 29-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BALARAM SAHU AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 2002 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India: 
Article 14 and 39(d)-Equal pay for equal work-Casual workers- C 
Regularization of service and payment of remuneration on par with regular 
staff on the ground of performing same duties and functions as regular staff-
Writ Petition allowed by High Court-On appeal,_ held: In the absence of any 
material to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and resultant 
discrimination High Court cannot assume and presume equality-Claimant-
worker cannot be held to hold any post to claim rights on par with regular D 
staff for any purposes including claim for equal pay-Labour Laws-
Regularisation. 
Respondents-workers filed writ-petitions for regularization of their 
services and also for granting of pay scale on par with the regularly employed 
staff on the ground that they were discharging the same duties and functions E 
as regular staff of the same Organization. High Court allowed the writ 
petitions. Hence this appeal by the State. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Though 'equal pay for equal work' is considered to be a F 
concomitant of Article 14 as much as 'equal pay for unequal work' will also 
be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon not only the nature 
or the volume of work, but also on the qualitative difference as regards 
reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, 
but the responsibilities do make a real and substantial difference. 
G 
[531-H; s:p-A] 
1.2. Respondent-workers would be entitled to only, apart from 
regularization ordered for which the appellants have had no serious 
objections, the payment of minimum wage prescribed for such workers if it 
525 
H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A is more than what was being paid to them and that the High Court was in 
serious error in directing that the respondents should be paid the same salary 
and allowances as were being paid to the regular employees holding similar 
posts. The respondent-workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even 
any comparison with the regular and permanent staff, for any or all purposes 
B including a claim for equal pay and allowances. The fact that no materials 
were placed before the High Court as to the nature of duties of either 
categories should have been viewed as a disentitling factor so far as the 
workers are concerned and dissuaded the High Court from embarking upon 
an inquiry in the abstract and with no factual basis and not to empower the 
Court to assume and presume equality in the absence of proof to the contra 
C or of any unequal nature of work performed by them. To claim a relief on the 
basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of 
equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible 
to claim rights on par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. 
D 
1532-D, E, F, G) 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., 11996) ll SCC 77; 
State of TN and Anr. v. MR. Alagappan and Ors., 11997) 4 SCC 401 and 
Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors., (2001( 3 
sec 574, relied on. 
E 
Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare 
and Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 293 and State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh 
and Ors., (1996] 2 SCC 293, distinguished. 
1.3. Orders of the High Court are set aside insofar as the pay equal to 
that of the regular employed staff has been ordered to be given to the N.M.RJ 
F daily wager/casual workers, to which they will not be. eligible or entitled, till 
they are regularized and taken as the permanent members of the establishment 
For the period prior to such permanent status/regularization, they would be 
entitled to be paid only at the rate of the minimum wages prescribed or notified. 
' ' 
[533-8, CJ 
G 
CIVI.L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7342 of 1993. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.1992 of the Orissa High Court 
in o.i.C. No. 18 of 1990. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7343193, 7047-7048/2002 and 751 of 1995. 
\.· 
I 
STATE OF ORI SSA AND ORS. v. BALARAM SAHU [RA.TU, J.] 
527 
G.L. Sanghi, Jana Kalyan Das, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker, A 
, Rana Ranjit Kumar Singh, G. Biswas, S. Misra, J.R. Das, Ejaz Maqbool, Ujjwal 
Kr. Jha, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Y. Prabhakar Rao and J.P. Mishra for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment o

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