CWP No. 226 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. 226 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2009 The Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpurkandi Township ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Workmen through Thein Dam Worker’s Union (Regd.) CITU, Gandhi Chowk, Pathankot and another ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Monica Chibbar Sharma, AAG, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.S.Chhabra, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 27.04.1992 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh(Annexure P-1), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workmen CWP No. 226 of 1993 2 holding them entitled to wages and facilities equal to work charged and regular employees on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained as it has clearly come on record that the service rules governing the service are different, the conditions of service are different, the mode of appointment is different, the responsibilities are different and the control and the supervision of the Management is different and, therefore, the facilities and wages are bound to be different. The appointments of casual workers are not made by complying with the statutory Rules governing the service nor are their selections made after advertisement of posts. As and when the work is available, the workmen are taken for the assignment. On this basis, she submits that merely because the work performed by the daily wagers and the other categories of employees is same, it would not entitle them for equal wages and facilities as are granted to work-charged and regular employees. For this submission, she relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh, 2006 (1) RSJ 539, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in detail referred to the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and proceeded to settle the principles governing the claim of equal pay for equal work. She, on this basis, submits that the impugned award (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, has come to a conclusion that the workmen are entitled to wages and facilities equal to the work-charge and regular employees on the basis of the CWP No. 226 of 1993 3 principle of “equal pay for equal work”. He submits that after the passing of the award dated 27.04.1992, various other developments have taken place. He contends that the certified standing orders in respect of work-charge staff of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpurkandi, which have been brought in force, have been made applicable to the respondents after the passing of the award dated 2.2.1993 by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. The said award dated 2.2.1993 has been implemented by the petitioner vide letter dated 1.3.1995. He further submits that the Government of Punjab had, vide its communication dated 13.03.1996, regularized the services of the workmen, wherein it has been stated that the past service rendered by the employees on work-charge/daily wage basis will be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits. He, on this basis, contends that the claim of the respondents has been accepted by the Government while implementing the award dated 2.2.1993 vide its letter dated 1.3.1995 and thereafter, by regularizing the services of the workmen vide communication dated 13.03.1996. The services of the workmen having been regularized, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. He, in any case, submits that the claim having been granted in favour of the workmen on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties vide the award dated 27.04.1992, which has been impugned by the Management before this Court deserves to be upheld. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The impugned award dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure P-1) when seen, does not take into consideration the requirement of law and especially, CWP No. 226 of 1993 4 the principles, as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which would be essential for giving shape to the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Merely because the work performed by the workmen is similar does not entitle the workmen equal wages and facilities to that of work-charged and regular employees. The law, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh (supra), clearly lays down the parameters and the principles where the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be enforced and will be applicable. Para-17 of this judgment culls out the law on this, which reads as follows:- “17. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the case of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid CWP No. 226 of 1993 5 stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales, a mere nomenclature designating a person as say a Carpenter or a Craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another Carpenter or Craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. Thus normally the CWP No. 226 of 1993 6 applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ Court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court, is on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies, without examining any relevant factors.” When these principles, as have been laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are applied to the facts, pleadings and evidence of the present case, the award is found lacking and wanting in fulfilling those principles. As has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, the mode of appointment, the procedure of appointment, the rules governing the service, service conditions of employees, responsibility of the post, control of the Management, wages and other benefits are all different and there is no similarity on these aspects between the daily wagers on one hand and CWP No. 226 of 1993 7 work-charged and regular employees on the other. That being so, the award dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained. It is an admitted position between the counsel for the parties that the implementation of this award was stayed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.1993, therefore, all subsequent events, which have come into existence during the pendency of the writ petition, have no nexus with the impugned award and have come into existence independently and, therefore, all benefits or claims, which have arisen to the parties without reference to the impugned award dated 27.04.1992 will not be affected by the setting aside of the impugned award in the present writ petition. It will, therefore, be open to the parties to agitate and claim their rights in accordance with law, if so advised. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, is hereby set aside with the observations as made above. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 06, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters.................Yes/No.