Service Law – Grant of pay-scales – Autonomous body vis-àvis State Government – Claim for parity – Appellants worked as daily rated employees with the Respondent-Board – Respondent adopted a Resolution in 1988 (the Parent Resolution) passed by State Government granting benefits to the skilled daily wager workmen – Appellants were accordingly granted pay scale of Rs.750 and other benefits flowing from the said Resolution – Subsequent Resolutions issued by State Government in 1991 and 1992 modified the Parent Resolution, granting pay scale of Rs.950-1500 to a class of daily wagers as specified therein – Appellants claimed entitlement to the aforesaid pay scale – Writ petition allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Board never adopted the subsequent Resolutions – Appellants working with the respondent, an autonomous body cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government – State Government and the autonomous bodies cannot be put at par – Appellants cannot claim the benefits flowing from the subsequent Government Resolutions as a matter of right – Further, benefits under the subsequent resolutions were mistakenly given by some of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn and recovery was also sought – Appellants cannot claim parity with such other daily rated employees by invoking Article 14 if they otherwise are not entitled to such benefit – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Principle of equal pay for equal work.
Service Law – Fixation of wage/pay-scale – Held: Economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the wage structure – Employees cannot claim that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must be granted certain additional benefits/benefits – Granting of pay parity by Courts may result in a cascading effect having adverse consequences.
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Principle of positive equality – Held: Article 14 embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality – It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Board never adopted the subsequent Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. The parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was specifically approved by the Board vide communication dated 08.06.1989. On the contrary the administrative instructions vide communication dated 29.08.1991 were issued to all the Chief Engineers of zonal offices that benefits pursuant to Government Resolution of 1991 are not to be granted to the daily rated employees of the Board. Right from adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Respondent-Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution to all the original writ petitioners-daily rated employees upon their completion of 5 years and of 10 years. Therefore, as such the Board which is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act never adopted the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and unless the said Resolutions are adopted by the Respondent-Board, the daily rated employees working with the Respondent-Board shall not be entitled to the benefits flowing from the subsequent resolutions. There shall not be automatic adoption and/or applicability of the subsequent resolutions. Under the circumstances as rightly held by the Division Bench, the daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board cannot claim the benefits from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 as a matter of right. [Para 13.2][861-E-H; 862-A-B]
1.2 Even being the daily rated employees working with the Respondent-Board they cannot claim the parity with the employees of the State Government. The Respondent-Board is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act. It is ultimately for the Respondent-Board to take a conscious decision which can be termed as a policy decision on the pay scales to be adopted and/or certain benefits which would have financial implications. Everything depends upon its economic viability or the financial capacity. The economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to function and may have to close down inevitably and have disastrous consequences for the employees themselves. The employees cannot legitimately claim that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must be granted certain additional benefits/benefits. Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect having adverse consequences. There are limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The Respondent-Board is an independent entity and it might have its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government. The State Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put at par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial resources. Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees. The Single Judge erred in directing the Board to grant the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Paras 13.3-13.6, 14] [862-C-H; 863-C-D, F-G]
1.3 So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners which was accepted by the Single Judge that as number of other daily rated employees of the Board were granted the benefits flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992, not paying similar benefits to the remaining daily rated employees would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such right from the very beginning it was the case on behalf of the Respondent-Board that the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were inadvertently and mistakenly given by some of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn and even the recovery is also sought. The original writ petitionersdaily rated employees of the Board are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not entitled to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity. Challenge to the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court fails. [Para 15][863-G-H; 864-A-C]
State of Gujarat and Others v. PWD Employees Union and others, (2013) 12 SCC 417: [2013] 10 SCR 1091 – held inapplicable.
State of U.P. & Others v. Rajkumar Sharma & Others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 : [2006] 2 SCR 877; State of West Bengal & Others v. Debasish Mukherjee & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 187 : [2011] 13 SCR 1077; Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another v. Balbir Kumar Walia and Others, (2021)
8 SCC, 784 2021 (7 ) JT 275 – relied on.
P. Singaravelan & Others v. District Collector, Tiruppur and DT and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 133 : [2019] 15 SCR 408; Secretary, Finance Department and Others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 301 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.