CWP No. 4458 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4458 of 1986 Date of Decision: 10.12.2009 Raghbir Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Managing Director, the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd., Sector 22, Chandigarh & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma, J . (Oral The petitioners seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release higher grade of Rs.600-880 to the petitioners as given to the employees of the respondents belonging to different categories after the merger of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation in MILKFED/respondent. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners were working in the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation which was a company registered under the Companies Act. In pursuance to the decision taken by the State Government it was decided to wind up the Punjab Dairy CWP No. 4458 of 1986 2 Development Corporation by transferring the assets along with the employees to the MILKFED. In pursuance to the decision the petitioners were absorbed in MILKFED. The agreement entered into between Punjab Dairy Development Corporation and MILKFED provided that the employees of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation shall be allowed an option to get absorbed in the MILKFED permanently. On their absorption the employees would be entitled to same pay scales as applicable to the employees of MILKFED. The employees like the petitioners were also held entitled to TA/DA rates and conveyance, re- imbursement as per rules of the MILKFED. Emoluments/benefits enjoyed by the petitioners at the time of leasing out of the assets to the MILKFED as per its bye-laws and various decisions of the of the Board of Directors of the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation were also protected. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were absorbed in the MILKFED and their pay and other emoluments in terms of agreement between the parties are protected. The grievance of the petitioners is that they while working as electricians in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation and were in the grade of Rs.140-300 which was also the grade of mechanic working in the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation i.e. Rs.140-300. Qualification for the post of electrician and that of mechanic in the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation was the same i.e. Matric with ITI with 2 years experience. CWP No. 4458 of 1986 3 It is also not in dispute that in the year 1978 the Pay Scale of Rs.140-300 was revised to Rs.510-800. Whereas the pay scale of the petitioners was revised to Rs.510- 800, the mechanics working in the MILKFED including the ones transferred from Punjab Dairy Development Corporation were granted higher Pay Scale of 600-880. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the grades of mechanic and electrician were equated in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation, the petitioners are also entitled to the same grade i.e. Rs.600-880. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. B.Renjith Kumar & Ors. 2009 (1) RSJ 105, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:- “13. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Thus, having regard to the Constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right. (see Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 and CWP No. 4458 of 1986 4 D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305. In the latest judgment, a two-Judge Bench this Court in the case of Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586 held that if the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim for parity of pay scale is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled the decision of the Central Government denying the benefits of same rank and pay structure to a Radio Mechanic in Assam Rifle as was given to other Central Paramilitary Forces was held to be clearly irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” Mr. D.S.Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contended that there is no discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor the petitioners are entitled to higher grade on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' for the reason that the qualification and duties attached to the post of mechanic and electrician in MILKFED are completely different. He referred to the qualification of the two posts in the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Service (Non-Common Cadre) Rules 1985 which reads as under:- “3. CATEGORISATION OF POSTS WITH QUALIFICATIONS AND PAY SCALE: (I) The various categories of posts covered by these Rules along with their pay CWP No. 4458 of 1986 5 scale and qualifications shall be as specified in Annexure-I to these Rule: Provided that the Board of Directors of the Milkfed shall be competent to add or delete any post of category of posts, revise the pay scale, fix the qualifications/revise the qualifications of any post. The Board of Directors shall also be competent to enhance or reduce the strength of any such category of posts from time to time with the approval of R.C.S. in all such cases. 2. An employee holding the personal post shall also be governed by these rules. Xx xx xx 26. Mechanic (General) 600-20-700/25-850/30-880 ITI in fitter/turner trade having 7 years experience in maintenance of dairy equipment installed in a large sized dairy plant. Those having outstanding experience of 10 years in maintenance of dairy equipment even though without ITI certificate would also be considered. Xx xx xx 36. Electrician: 450-15-525/15-600/20-700/25-880: ITI certificate in Electrical Trade having 3 years experience of maintenance of electrical equipment including controls in a large sized milk plant/processing unit. Those having outstanding experience of 7 years in maintenance of dairy CWP No. 4458 of 1986 6 equipment even though without ITI Certificate would also be considered.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also pointed out that besides difference in qualification that work done by the electrician and mechanic can in no way be equated with each other and therefore, the principle of 'equal work for equal pay' is not attracted. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that it is for the employer to fix the pay scale of the employees keeping in view the qualification and the nature of duties. The persons in two different categories having different qualification and work cannot claim parity in pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In support of this contention learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shri Jaghnath Vs. Union of India 1992 (3) SCT 406; Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India 1994 (2) SCT 296, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Sant Raj Singh & Ors. 2006 (3) SCT 56 and Union of India and others Vs. Hiranmoy Sen and others (2008) 1 SCC 630, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' depends upon equality in all respects. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' provided in Articles 14 and 39 (1) of the Constitution cannot be applied in vacuum. The qualification itself can be a valid basis for classification as also the quality and responsibilities of duties. It is not CWP No. 4458 of 1986 7 for the court to interfere in grant of different pay scales unless the classification is arbitrary, unfair or irrational. On consideration of matter, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It may be seen that the qualification for the post of mechanic and that of electrician as also duties performed are different and therefore, it was always open to the respondents to prescribe different pay scales. The petitioners can have no claim to pay scale of Mechanics. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners stand answered in the negative by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Hiranmoy Sen and Ors. (Supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the auditors and assistants have been historically treated at par in the matter of pay scales. Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are of the opinion that even if it is correct, that will not be of any help to the respondents. To give an illustration, if post A and post B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale of Post B to the same level. It is entirely on the Government and the authorities to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not. The judiciary must exercise self restraint and not encroach into the CWP No. 4458 of 1986 8 executive or legislative domain.” Therefore, finding no merit in the writ petition it is ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 10.12.2009 Judge rp