LexSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B -.. c D E F G H [2016] 7 S.C.R. 350 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 213 of2013) OCTOBER 26, 2016 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] -: Labour law - Principl<:_ of equal pay for equal work - Application of- Claim of pay parity by temporary employees (daily- wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) with regular employees - Temporary employees appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment - Duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees same as were being discharged by regular employees - Employees possessed the qualifications prescribed for appoi11tme11t on regular basis - Held: Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), of regularly engaged government employees, holding the same post - Principle of equal pay for equal work. Principles of equal pay for equal work - Invocation of. by temporary employees - Parameters laid down by this Court - Elucidated. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 All the concerned temporary employees (daily- wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post. [Para 58) (444-E) 1.2 The exercise of determining whether the concerned employees, were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, ~as wen: being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts, would require the application of the 350 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized herein. All the temporary employees in the instant bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. During the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular .employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized herein. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. [Para 57) [443-F-H; 444-A-D) 2. The judgments pertaining to temporary employees wherein this Court expressed the legal position with reference to the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' were considered and the following deduction are made: 351 A 8 c· D E (i) The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and F responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay .for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post. [Para 42) [421- C-D] G Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty (2003) 5 SCC 188: 2003 (3) SCR 753; Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452:2011 (1) SCR 883; Steel H 352 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 7 S.C.R. Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122:2010 (13) SCR 429; National Aluminum Company Limited v. Anania Kishore Rout (2014) 6 SCC 756:2014 (7) SCR 406 - reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.