CWP No. 11404 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11404 of 1989 Date of decision May 2, 2011 Tarsem Lal and others ....... Appellants Versus The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another. ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amit Sharma , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K. S. Sivia, DAG., Punjab. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). CM No. 5973 of 2011 The application for restoration is allowed. The case is restored back to its original number. The case is taken up for final disposal. CWP No. 11404 of 1989 The writ is for mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the same scales of pay to persons holding the posts of Shift Incharge in Rice Mills as the scales awarded to the Shift Incharges in Oil Plants of the respondent-Organisation. The basis of the claim by the petitioner is that the post of Shift Incharge had been brought to be covered by the Common cadre rules, although not originally included in the same. They had been in the scale of pay of `160-140 and as per the recommendation of the Administrative Committee the scales of pay had been revised to `300-800 w.e.f 6.4.1976. These scales were applied with the recommendation of the General Manager but in its application they CWP No. 11404 of 1989 2 excepted the claims of the Shift Incharge in Rice Mills alone by a different treatment and provided for a revision to a scale of `225-500. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that there was no justification for making discrimination between Shift Incharges working in Oil Plants and Shift Incharges working in Rice Mills. Some of them had themselves worked in Oil Plants and at the time of initial entry, both the persons were drawing the same scale of pay. According to him, there was no difference in the quality of work and the discrimination violated the principle of equal pay and equal work, that is the hallmark of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd., and another Vs. Union of India and others 1991 (2) SLR 131, learned counsel wants to draw a parity in reasoning to a case that the Supreme Court dealt with, of a pay scale for employees in unionized cadre which was the same as that of Cotton Corporation of India but later disturbed after 1970. This principle was also followed by two Divisioin Bench Judges of this Court in Haryana State Biiologists Association Vs. The State of Haryana 1994 (4) RSJ 444 and Bhojaraja Vs. State Bank of Mysore 1996 (4) 784 and Ashok Rathi Vs. State of Haryana and others 1996 (4) 782. Insofar as the principle of law that equal pay shall be granted to persons who are doing equal work, it is essentially drawn on a factual situation of whether the work in one establishment carries the same nature of work in another establishment on the basis of which parity is sought and whether they also involved same type of responsibilities. Joining issues on the points raised by the petitioners, the respondent had taken the objection that at the time when the revision of pay scales was considered the administrative committee recorded its specific reasons as to why parity in scales could not be given for Shift Incharges at the Rice Mills with Shift Incharges at Oil Plants. The minutes of the meeting held CWP No. 11404 of 1989 3 on 5.7.1978 is reproduced as under:- Shift Incharges Rice Mills:- The shift Incharges working in the Rice Mills do not merit the reversion of their present pay scales to Rs.300-800 as their job is not of a matching responsibility as that of the Shift Incharges of Oil complexes whose duties and responsibilities are far more complicated and difficult involving analysis of various oils at different stages of production of Vanaspati and Refund Oil. Moreover, none of them possess the minimum prescribed qualifications of B.Sc HBTI. The Committee, however, feels that keeping in view long experience and being responsible for the production and qualify of rice their present scales of Rs.160-400 is on a low side and that it may be increased to Rs.225-500.” XX XX XX The minimum qualifications of the post of Shift Incharge in Rice Mills is B.Sc whereas the minimum educational qualification for the post of Shift Incharge working in Oil Complexes is B.Sc (HBT). Apart from the fact that the Shift Incharges working in the Oil Plant and in Rice Mills have different duties and responsibilities attached to their post. It is incorrect that the decision is arbitrary. 4. It is further stated that even the educational qualifications were not the same. Whereas the qualification for the post of shift Incharge in Rice Mills is B.Sc Graduation and the qualification for a Shift Incharge in Oil Plants required specialization in HBTI. The respondents had also brought to fact that duties and responsibilities are also different. The respondents were therefore explaining that there was no anomaly and there was a justification for treating them differently. 5. I find that the case involves disputed question of fact and appropriate adjudication could not have been through an intervention in the writ petition and the remedy after issuing notice should have been only to raise an industrial dispute before the competent forum. CWP No. 11404 of 1989 4 Learned counsel refers me to the fact that Mr. R. C. Sharma, one of the petitioners himself had been working in Oil Plant and later brought to the Rice Mill. This is no argument to apply a parity if a person at some point of time had also worked in an Oil Plant. Since the responsibilities and duties are stated to be different and since it is also brought through a fact that the educational qualifications were also different, the petitioner cannot have a remedy before this Court on merely an oral assertion that the nature of duties and responsibilities are same. It is unfortunate that the case must have stood this long for the parties to be directed for an adjudication elsewhere. The case simply does admit as not an open and shut situation of drawing parity in scales without finding that the work and responsibility involved were same in both types of employment viz., in the Oil Plant as well as in the Rice Mill. The equal pay for equal work, it is not like a mathematic formula that could be applied in all situations without an enquiry of whether comparison that is sought to be made could be undertaken by a Court in the absence of any evidence but on the basis of only assertions. (See:Food Corporation of India Workers' Union Vs. Food Corporation of India 2002 9 SCC 100, question of fact cannot be adjudicated without enquiry; Govt. of W.B. Vs. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347 inapplicability of principle when educational qualification to two posts are different). The writ of mandamus as sought for is therefore declined. The parties shall be at liberty to seek for adjudication before an Industrial Adjudication Forum, if they are so advised on the contentions raised by the petitioner through this writ petition which are disputed by the respondents. 6. The writ petition is dismissed subject to above observations. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 2 , 2011 archana CWP No. 11404 of 1989 5