C.W.P. No.1614 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1614 of 1989 Date of Decision.14.05.2010 Gian Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana through the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Irrigation and Power Department, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation at the time when the matter is called. The case is of the year 1989 and I find from the records that notices have been issued to the petitioners as well as the Advocate General. Notices have not come back but I still hasten to consider the case in view of the long pendency and in the light of what is stated in the writ petition. 2. The petitioners have demanded that they be put on scale of Rs.480-760 and Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.02.1981 and 01.01.1986 respectively. The basis of the claim is that they may be treated on par with the State Government employees and the scales applicable to them for similar posts shall also be extended to the petitioners. 3. This issue has been squarely met by the written statement C.W.P. No.1614 of 1989 -2- filed on behalf of the Board by pointing out that the State Electricity Board is an autonomous body constituted under the Electricity Act of 1948 and they have the powers to frame their own regulations under Section 79 of the said Act. The Electricity Board has provided a pay structure and there is no question of an automatic applicability of the scales announced by the State Government. The claims of the petitioners were really an echo to the revision in pay scales which employees of the State Government obtained on the recommendations of the Pay Commission. It appears that the Electricity Board did not revise the pay scales as per the Pay Commission but they appointed its One Man Pay Commission to advise the Board on the rationalization of the salary and allowances of its employees by its office order No.182/GS-110 dated 15.05.1980. The One Man Pay Commission after hearing the trade unions and employees submitted its report with the Board and the revisions of pay scales were made as per the recommendations. The pay structure of the Board was different from that of the State Government and the scales which had been granted at that time were on the basis of the recommendations by the One Man Pay Commission after consultation with the trade unions. The statement also refers to the fact that services of most of the petitioners had been made regular in the year 1986-87 and placed in the pay scales of Rs.400-700 and when the pay scales were again revised on 19.08.1987 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 they were granted the scale of Rs.950- 1500. The statement gives out several details as to how periodical commissions had been constituted for recommendations relating to C.W.P. No.1614 of 1989 -3- pay scales and how the several benefits have been given to them on the basis of such recommendations. 4. The case has to be examined from a fundamental position whether the employees of the Board could claim parity with the State Government employees for similar posts. The principle of equal pay for equal work admits of several exceptions and an employer constituted through an autonomous Board has a right to provide for a mechanism for grant of appropriate scales and no complaint could be made that they have to tow the line of the State Government at all times. So many other factors could be relevant such as profitability, productivity, size of the organisation, payments of workers, the bargaining power of the employees with employer etc. There is no material in the writ petition to make any inference that the scales of pay which were not granted by the Board were either irrational or were grossly unjust. 5. The petitioners cannot obtain the relief that they asked for and the writ petition ought to fail. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 14, 2010 Pankaj*