U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus AZIZ AHMAD

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 20-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C .. R. 373 
~ 
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. 
A 
v. 
AZIZ AHMAD 
-<. 
(Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2009) 
JANUARY 20, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
.... 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Labour Law - Equal pay for equal work - Respondent, a 
Boiler Overhauling Mechanic, claimed higher pay scale on c 
the ground that post of Boiler Overhauling Mechanic was 
equivalent to the post of Boiler Mistry or Fitter - Burden of 
proof - Held: Was on the respondent-workman - He was 
required to prove that the three posts were identical and 
.... 
similar- Tribunal erred in placing the burden on the employer D 
to prove the job requirements of the three posts, and in 
coming to the conclusion that the posts were identical on basis 
of pleadings alone - Pleadings were required to be proved -
In absence of evidence, Tribunal was not justified in coming 
to a conclusion that the nature, duties and responsibilities of E 
the three posts were identical and similar- Matter remanded 
to Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 
,. "' 
Respondent, a Boiler Overhauling Mechanic in 
Appellant-Board, claimed higher pay scale on the ground 
F 
that the post of Boiler Overhauling Mechanic was 
equivalent to that of the post of Boiler Mistry or Fitter. 
Respondent claimed that the persons holding the post 
of Boiler Overhauling Mechanic, Boiler Mistry or Fitter 
were doing identical or similar nature of work and 
G 
discharged the same functions and responsibilities. 
-- " 
The Industrial Tribunal held in favour of Respondent 
holding that he was entitled to the pay scale of 'Skilled-
A' category as admissible to the Fitter. The order was 
373 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A upheld by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
• 
Disposing of the appeal, the court 
-
HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal went on to record a finding 
B 
that none of the parties had filed an objective data with 
regard to the work assessment of the aforesaid posts 
and thereafter erroneously put the burden on the 
employer to record the job requirements of the three 
posts in question and to prove and establish that they are 
not identical. [Paras 12 and 13) [380-B-D] 
c 
1.2. The burden to prove a particular fact is always 
on, the person who alleges the same. In the present case 
it was the contention of the respondent-workman, who 
claimed that the job requirements, nature and 
D responsibilities of the post of Boiler Mistry/Fitter are 
,. -
identical and similar with that of the Boiler Overhauling 
Mechanic. The burden, therefore, was on the workman to 
prove and establish the aforesaid facts by leading cogent 
and reliable evidence. He was required to place 
E documentary evidence in support of the same. The 
Tribunal as also the High Court while affirming the award 
changed the rule of the game by placing the entire burden 
of proof on the management that the posts are not 
identical. [Paras 13 and 15) [380-D-E; 381-G] 
"' 
~ 
F 
1.3. The Industrial Tribunal committed a manifest error 
of law and of fact initially by placing the burden on the 
employer to prove and establish the job requirements of 
the said three posts, and thereafter, again committed an 
error in coming to the conclusion that the posts are 
G identical on the basis of the pleadings of the parties 
alone. Pleadings are required to be proved and so long 
" -
evidence is not led in support of the pleadings no 
reliance can be placed only on the pleadings without 
there being any cogent evidence in support of the 
H 
' 
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. AZIZ 
375 
AHMAD 
pleadings. The Tribunal expressly stated in its findings 
A 
that none of the parties have filed any objective data in 
regard to the work assessment of the posts of Boiler 
Overhauling Mechanic, Boiler Mistry or Fitter. In absence 
of such evidence the Tribunal was not justified in coming 
to a conclusion that the nature, duties and 
B 
responsibilities of the three posts are identical and similar. 
(Para 17] (384-D-G] 
1.4. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal 
for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The parties 
C 
are however allowed an opportunity to lead further 
evidence in support of their claims and counter claims 
regarding the status and position of the aforesaid three 
posts. The Tribunal should see to it that the claims and 
the rebuttal of the said claim should be supported by 
cogent and reliable evidence. For that matter the Tribunal 
D 
shall render an opportuni

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