C.W.P. No.6555 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6555 of 1986 Date of Decision:28.01.2010 Naib Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus The Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation (Milkfed), SCO 3016-17, Sector 22, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the respondents. 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. The petitioners 35 in number, who were originally working in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation (PDDC in short) were later absorbed with Milkfed, when the PDDC was dissolved and an agreement was entered into between PDDC and Milkfed on instructions dated 15.04.1985. All the petitioners were being appointed as Helpers at the Milkfed at Bathinda and they were put on a pay scale of Rs.300-430/- plus allowances as admissible under the Milkfed Rules. 2. The grievance of the petitioners was that the Milkfed had breached the terms of the agreement with reference to pay-scale which were offered to them. The particular term, which was C.W.P. No.6555 of 1986 -2- claimed to be offended was Clause 2 of the agreement, which reads as follows: “The employees of the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation shall be allowed option to get absorbed in the Milkfed permanently. On absorption he/she would be entitled to the same scale as applicable to the employees of the Milkfed. Employees of PDDC shall be entitled to TA/DA rates and conveyance re-imbursement as per rules of Milkfed.” 3. The petitioners' contention was that when they were appointed as Helpers as per the terms of the agreement, they were bound to be absorbed and entitled to the same scales as applicable to the employees of the Milkfed. The scale of pay for a Helper at Milkfed was Rs.325-525/- and therefore, the offer of pay of Rs.300- 430/- was not justified. The petitioners would also refer to an instance of 38 other persons, who like them, had been transferred from PDDC to Milkfed and they had all been given wages in the sale of Rs.325-525/- and the provision for a scale of Rs.300-430/- only to them was discriminatory and offended also the principles of equal pay for equal work. 4. The response to the contention of the petitioners was that the petitioners were Helpers employed at PDDC and they had been promoted as unskilled workers in the pay scale of Rs.300-430. If the contention was that the petitioners cannot treat themselves at par with 38 other workers, who held a promotion post even at PDDC and they could not be treated on par, in the written C.W.P. No.6555 of 1986 -3- statement, it is contended that the posts were personal to them and there was no post as an unskilled worker in Milkfed as it was available in PDDC and therefore, they were offered a scale below the scale to Helpers-cum-Cleaners at Milkfed. It was also the contention that the Helper-cum-Cleaner involved supervisory work and the post of a Helper-cum-Cleaner and unskilled workers could not be equated. 5. I do not find any of the contentions raised in defence as acceptable. If there was an agreement between PDDC and Milkfed and it provided for absorption and entitlement to a same scale as applicable to the employees of Milkfed, then the terms of the agreement cannot be breached and any order providing for absorption and a scale of pay will have to match what is guaranteed under the agreement. The preamble in the order of appointment to the petitioners by Milkfed has the following expressions: “The following helpers, employed at Milk Plant, Bathinda on fixed wages are hereby promoted as unskilled workers in the pay scale of Rs.300-5-350/10-430 plus allowance as admissible under Milkfed Rules, with immediate effect.” It reads as though the petitioners, who were Helpers were being promoted as unskilled workers. The contention before me is, on the contrary, that the petitioners were all unskilled workers in PDDC and they were brought in as Helpers, which were promotion posts. Similarly, the contention that the Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner holds a supervisory post obtains no meaning. If it is considered that C.W.P. No.6555 of 1986 -4- the persons who were offered a scale of pay of Rs.325-525/- were also in the class IV posts to which the petitioners were also appointed, I have not been shown through any particular recruitment rules of the establishment that even amongst the lowest category of workers different scales of pay were possible. If the petitioners were appointed as Helpers, it is how the order of appointment dated 15.10.1981 could be read. There is no escape from situation that within the same class of persons doing the same type of work, there could be no two different scales of pay. The demand by the petitioners that they were to be put on the scale of pay of Rs.325-525/- is justified and the petitioners shall be paid the difference in the amounts from what they have already been paid. The calculation shall be made within a period of six weeks and released to them with interest @6% p.a. All attendent benefits on such refixation of pay, shall also avail to them. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 28, 2010 Pankaj*