Punjab State Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. & Anr. vs Balbir Kumar Walia & Ors.

Pay scale – Entitlement to – Employees seeking pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab from 1.1.1986, though revised pay scale was allowed by the Federation w.e.f. 1.1.1994 – High Court holding that employees were entitled to pay scale – Held: Not justified – Principle of equal pay for equal work not applicable to them in as much as Grade I is a higher post having higher duties and responsibilities than Grade II – Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-I is a promotion alavenue for Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-II – Educational qualifications and the responsibilities of the two posts are quite different. Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, it was contended that the Federation-Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd is a statutory Co-operative Society which is having its Common Cadre Rules. Any amendment in the Common Cadre Rules is to be approved by the Registrar (Co-operative Societies). The State Government communicated on 1.3.1990 and 9.7.1993 that the pay scale as applicable to the Punjab Government employees is not to be adopted by the Public Sector Undertakings without taking into consideration the financial health of the other statutory Boards and Corporations. The Federation thus took a conscious and concerted decision to not follow the report of the Anomaly Committee of the State Government to grant revised pay scale from 1.1.1986 in view of precarious financial condition. Moreover, financial assistance had to be availed by the Federation from the State Government as well as from the National Dairy Development Board. A Committee was constituted to examine the grievance of the employees for grant of revised pay scale. The Committee also recommended that pay scale be given w.e.f. 1.1.1994 on account of financial stringency being faced by the Federation. The Board of Directors approved the recommendation of the Committee, which was accepted by the Registrar (Co- operative Societies). Therefore, the decision of not to grant revised pay scale from 1.1.1986 was taken keeping in view the financial condition of the Federation. [Para 41, 42][423-C-G]

1.2 Judicial review of administrative action is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. An administrative decision is considered as flawed if it is illegal, and a decision is illegal if it pursues an objective other than that for which the power to make the decision was conferred. The discretion exercised by the decision maker is subject to judicial scrutiny if a purpose other than the specified purpose is pursued. [Para 48][430-A-B]

1.3 The decision that the Federation was in financial difficulties is based upon relevant material before the Federation. The process to arrive at such decision can be said to be flawed only on the permissible grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Neither the decision-making process, nor the decision itself suffers from any such vice. [Para 49][430-GH]

1.4 The information received under the Right to Information Act to show that the Federation was in profit in the year 19961997, is not relevant to determine the financial condition fortheperiod from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1994. The Federation has categorically stated that because of the remedial steps taken by the Federation, there was turn around only after 1994.Still further, the profits in the balance sheet are not meant to be appropriated towards wages of the employees alone. Though the profits had to be shared by the members of the Co-operative Society,but the employees of the Federation are not its members. The income generated by the Federation is not to be expanded only on payment of salary but is also required for upgradation of technology, renovation and expansion of plants etc.Therefore, entire profit is not to be appropriated towards the wages of the employees alone. The Federation was established as a step towards white revolution. The objective of the Federation was not to give employment but to increase milk production in the State.The employees are facilitators of the employer to achieve such objective and thus demanding enhanced wages without considering the objective and financial condition of the employer would not be ideal. The employer and the employees have to work together to achieve the objective of the organisation i.e. white revolution rather frittering a way the gains made by the joint efforts of the management and employees by giving increased wages to the employees irrespective of its capacity to bear such expenses. [Para 50][431-A-E]

1.5 The submission that there will not be financial burden on the federation in view of the fact that the High Court has ordered payment of arrears for a period of 3 years and 2 months before the date of filing of writ petitions is again not tenable. The High Court has granted revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986 instead of revised pay scales granted to the employees of the federation with effect from 01.01.1994.Therefore, restricting it for a period of 3 years and 2 months will not be helpful in respect of the financial condition of the Federation as during the relevant time the federation was suffering from huge losses. In view thereof, the order of the High Court is unjustified and in excess of the power of judicial review conferred on the High Court.The orders passed by the High Court are hereby set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed. [Para 51, 52] [431-E-H]

2.1 As regards, CA No. 7432 of 2011, is directed against an order passed by the High Court wherein it was held that the employees are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab from 1.1.1986, though revised pay scale was allowed by the Federation w.e.f. 1.1.1994. It was contended that the argument of the employees claiming equal pay for equal work was not examined by the High Court. The employees have not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court. The employees cannot raise any grievance in an appeal preferred by the Federation to claim equal pay for equal work.The employees are not aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court. Therefore, the employees cannot raise an argument which was not raised before the High Court. However, their arguments are examined. It was argued that the claim of the employees is not of revised pay scale from 1.1.1986 but that the categorization of Milk Procurement Assistants as Grade-I & II is unconstitutional and they would be entitled to the same pay as is being paid to Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-I on the principle of equal pay for equal work. [Paras 53, 54, 55][432-A-E]

2.2 As per the staffing pattern, the educational qualifications for Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-I are Bachelor’s Degree with minimum three years’ experience of Organisation of Milk Producers Co-operative Societies affiliated with Milk Producers Co-operative Unit whereas for Milk Procurement Assistant Grade II, the qualification is Graduation preferable in Agriculture with one year experience of workingas Secretary in a Cooperative Milk Supply Society. The pay scale prescribed for the Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-I is Rs.700-1200 whereas the pay scale prescribed for the Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-II is Rs.480-880. It is sought to be contended that, infact, Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-I is a promotional avenue for Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-II. The educational qualifications and the responsibilities of the two posts are quite different. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable to them in as much as Grade I is a higher post having higher duties and responsibilities than Grade II. There is no merit in the argument claiming equal pay for the alleged equal work. The orders passed by the High Court are hereby set aside. [Para 57-59][433-A-E]

3.1 As regards, CA No. 7434 of 2011, is directed against an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court wherein it was held that the employees are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab from 1.1.1986, though revised pay scale was allowed by the Federation w.e.f. 1.1.1994. It was contended that the argument of the employees claiming equal pay for equal work was not examined by the High Court. [Para 60][433-F]

3.2 The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are Milk Procurement Assistants Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.700-1200 whereas respondent No. 5 is Animal Husbandry Assistant in the same pay scale of Rs.700-1200 w.e.f. 1.8.1980. Such employees are claiming parity in the matter of pay with the Area Officers including Deputy Manager (Procurement) and Dairy Extension Officer in the pay scale of Rs.850-1700. The employees have pleaded that w.e.f. 2.2.1987, the designation of Milk Procurement Assistants GradeI has been changed to Milk Procurement Supervisor and now the workload has increased inasmuch as fifty societies are to be supervised as against eight societies which were supervised, without any increase in the pay scale. It was pointed out that the employees and the Deputy Manager (Procurement)/Dairy Extension Officer do not constitute one class as the posts are not similar on the points of qualifications and duties to be performed by the incumbents. The classification on the basis of qualifications, educational or by experience, for the fixation of pay is permissible under the Constitution. The qualifications of Milk Procurement Assistant Grade-I or Animal Husbandry Assistant is Graduation/Matriculation with live-stock Diploma course whereas the essential qualifications for the post of Dairy Extension Officer and for the post of Deputy Manager (Procurement) is B.Sc. Dairy Husbandry/Dairy Technology with two to three years’ experience. [Paras 61, 62][433-G-H; 434-A-D]

3.3 The order passed by the High Court has not been challenged in appeal by the employees. Secondly, the classification of different pay scales is permissible based upon educational qualifications, experience and nature of duties. In view of the said facts, the employees are not entitled to the pay scale as claimed in the writ petition. The orders passed by the High Court are set aside. [Para 63-64][434-E-F]

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122 – relied on.

Purshottam Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1973)

1 SCC 651; Union of India & Anr. v. S.B. Vohra & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 150 : [2004] 1 SCR 36 – distinguished. M.M.R. Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 191 : [1990] SCR 687; Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. v. G.S. Uppal & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 375 : [2008] 6 SCR 662; High Court Employees Welfare Assn., Calcutta & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 334 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 712; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC

187 : [1989] 3 SCR 488; A.K. Bindal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 163 : [2003] 3 SCR 928; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 754 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549; Crown Aluminium Works v. Workmen AIR 1958 SC 30 : [1958] SCR 651; Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India v. Workmen & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 895 : [1961] SCR 536; Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Workmen (1963) 1 LLJ 120; Workmen v. Reptakos Brett. & Co. Ltd. (1992) 1 SCC 290 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 129 ; South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Coordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees’

Union.(2001) 4 SCC 101 : [2001] 1 SCR 742; Associate Bank Officers’ Association v. State Bank of India & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 428 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 475; Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L. & Ors.(2003) 6 SCC 490 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 720; S.C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 279 : [2007] 9 SCR 130; Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Dixit & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 535 : [2014] 11 SCR 255; State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar & Anr. (1976) 2 SCC

844 : [1976] 2 SCR 1034; The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 565; Union of India & Anr. v. S.B. Vohra & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 150 : [2004] 1 SCR 36; General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad & Ors.(2003) 8 SCC 639:[2003] 4 Suppl.SCR 349; K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406; Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v.Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511; Jagdish Mandal v.State of Orissa & Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 517 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 606; West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. v. Abdul Halim & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 39 : [2019] SCR 1089; Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors.(2019) 10 SCC 738 : [2019] 12 SCR 532; Harshit Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 710 – referred to.