9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work." 2. Mode and manner of selection as a ground of classification. 3. Grant of pay to daily wagers on the basis of the minimum of a pay scale. 4. Judicial discipline and adherence to precedent. 5. Practical application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" in different fact situations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work": The primary issue in these appeals is the applicability of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work." The respondents, appointed as daily wagers by the Public Health Department of Punjab without following the recruitment process, claimed the benefit of equal pay for equal work after serving for a number of years. The High Court allowed their writ petitions, granting them the minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance, but denied their prayer for interest. 2. Mode and Manner of Selection as a Ground of Classification: The appellants contended that the High Court erred by not considering that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" should not be applied automatically. The court must look at the nature, quality, and quantity of work, as well as the mode and manner of selection. It was argued that there must be complete and wholesale identity between the groups claiming equal pay and those already receiving it. The Supreme Court reiterated that the mode of selection can be a relevant factor for classification, as seen in the cases of S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand and State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh. 3. Grant of Pay to Daily Wagers on the Basis of the Minimum of a Pay Scale: The respondents argued that, having worked for a long time, they should be granted pay on the basis of the minimum of a pay scale, similar to their counterparts in other departments. The Supreme Court noted that while the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is recognized under Article 39(d) of the Constitution, its application requires a thorough examination of various factors, including the method of recruitment, qualifications, and responsibilities. The Court emphasized that the principle is not an abstract one and must be applied with caution. 4. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Precedent: The Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedent. It observed that different Benches of the High Courts and even the Supreme Court have sometimes bypassed the ratio of larger Benches. The Court reiterated that the rule of judicial discipline is essential for sustaining the legal system. In this context, the Court referred to the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, which emphasized the need for adherence to the principles laid down by larger Benches. 5. Practical Application of the Doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" in Different Fact Situations: The Supreme Court highlighted that the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" must consider various dimensions of a given job, including responsibilities, qualifications, and the nature of duties. It noted that the principle has been applied differently in various cases, depending on the specific facts and circumstances. The Court referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, which held that the quality of work, educational qualifications, and other relevant factors must be evaluated by expert bodies rather than being determined by the courts. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court mechanically applied the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" without examining relevant factors. It directed the State to appoint an Expert Committee to examine whether the respondents satisfy the criteria for invoking the principle, including adherence to recruitment rules. The Court emphasized that equality under Article 14 should be invoked only where parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favor are legal. The appeals were allowed, except for the one dismissed as infructuous, with costs payable by the State in one case.
|
