STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. versus SURJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 394 
_, 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
~'" 
v. 
SURJIT SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2003) 
B 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Labour laws - Doctrine of equal pay for equal work -
Applicability of - Relevant factors for determination - Held: 
c It depends upon equal work of equal value, source and 
manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale 
or complete identity - There should be strict pleadings and 
pmof of various factors - On facts, daily wagers not entitled 
to equal pay for equal work on par with the regular employees 
D 
holding similar posts, even though they have worked for long 
- While appointing daily wagers recruitment rules not followed 
.,. 
nor advertisement issued - Equality clause should be 
invoked only where parties are similarly situated and orders 
passed in their favour is legal and not illegal - Constitution 
E of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 39(d). 
Respondents were appointed as daily wagers in 
different capacities in the department of the State 
" 
Government. Some of them were appointed after their 
F 
names were requisitioned from the Employment 
Exchange. Respondents were paid wages in terms of the 
offer of appointment and their names were maintained in 
the Muster Roll. They have worked for number of years. 
They claimed their benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' 
on par with their counterparts in different departments 
G who were similarly situated and had been granted relief 
.. 
of regular pay scale. High Court allowed the writ 
applications and granted minimum of pay scale with . -
dearness allowance to the respondent. Hence the present 
appeals. 
H 
394 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. SURJIT SINGH & 
395 
ORS . 
...... 
Dismissing C.A. No.7466 of 2003 and allowing the 
A 
other appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the constitutional scheme, the doctrine 
of 'equal pay for equal work' has a definite place in view 
of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with 
B 
Article 14 thereof. [Para 19) [409-C-D] 
1.2. The grant of the benefit of the doctrine of 'equal 
pay for equal work' depends upon a large number of 
factors including equal work, equal value, source and c 
manner of appointment, equal identity of group and 
wholesale or complete identity. The court insists on strict 
pleadings and proof of various factors. How the said 
principle is to be applied in different fact situation is the 
only question. [Paras 27, 29 and 41] [416-E-F; 418-A; 426-
D 
j,.. 
H; 427-A] 
_, 
1.3. The counsel may or may not be entirely correct 
in projecting three purported different views of this Court 
having regard to the accepted principle of law that ratio 
of a decision must be culled out from reading it in its 
E 
entirety and not from a part thereof. The decisions of large 
benches are binding. [Paras 27 and 41) [416-E-F; 426-H] 
1.4. In *Charanjit Singh's case, the judge, speaking for 
the Three Judge Bench, used the word 'may' in regard 
F 
to the source of recruitment but the same has to be 
considered as a relevant factor as the operative part of 
the judgment shows. Charanjit Singh, therefore, does not 
militate against the other decisions of this Court where 
the mode and manner of appointment has been 
G 
.,,. 
considered to be a relevant factor for the purpose of 
invocation of the said doctrine. [Para 30] [418-H; 419-A-
B] 
1.5. While making appointments, the recruitment 
rules had not been followed. There had been no 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A advertisement. How and in what manner the names were 
called from the employment exchange has not been 
disclosed. Ordinarily a large number of people would not 
be interested in applying for appointment against a Class 
Ill or Class IV post so long the appointment is contractual. 
B Interviews were also taken by a Committee which was 
not competent therefor as appointment in the post of 
Clerk and above were required to be made by the Public 
Service Commission. [Para 36] [424-D-E] 
1.6. The High Court noticed that this Court in several 
C decisions had arrived at an opinion that the principle of 
'equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied blindly but 
chose to rely upon the decision of this Court in 
**Dhirendra Chamo/i & Anr. v. State of U.P's case. (Para 40] 
[426-G] 
D 
1.7. The submission that only because some juniors 
have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a 
ground for extending the same benefit to the 
respondents. The equality cla

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