CWP No.15125 of 2000 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15125 of 2000 Date of Decision 25.11.2009 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana ..... Petitioner V/s Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. Present: Mr.H.S.Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate for Mr.B.N.Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents. *** K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Municipal Corporation is before this Court in the present Civil Writ Petition, challenging the award that was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, acceding to the remarks made on behalf of Workers' Union namely Municipal corporation, Fire Brigade, Union Ludhiana, through its General Secretary, that the duties which are performed by the Firemen are more onerous than the duties performed by the Clerks in the Municipal Corporation and therefore, they shall be granted selection grade scale of pay which are granted to the Clerks. They also obtained reference for adjudication that they are entitled to Cycle Allowance and increase in Washing Allowance and free water supply and electricity. The Labour Court observed that for the workmen in the Fire Brigade who are doing onerous duties, their scale of pay cannot be less than what were admissible for the Clerks appointed in the Municipal Corporation. The Tribunal, therefore, after considering that the Clerks were in scale of pay of Rs.950- CWP No.15125 of 2000 -2- 1800 with initial start of Rs.1000/-, held that the workmen shall be granted benefit of Rs.1200-2100 for 40% of the Fireman on their completion of 5 years' service as Fireman Grade-II and for the grant of Rs.1500-2640 for 40% of the total strength of the Cadre after minimum period of 10 years' of service with designation of Fireman Grade-I on seniority-cum-merit basis. By virtue of the Award, the Labour Court was actually creating new structures of scales of pay and also creating classification amongst the cadre of some obtaining to Grade-I and some obtaining to Grade-II. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the claims for Cycle Allowance, increase in washing allowance and free water supply and electricity and directed medical leave for treatment of injury sustained in the course of duty, shall be made, as provided under Rule 8.138 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I. 2. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal is assailed on the ground that the Labour Court had gone beyond what the law enabled to adjudicate upon. The power of the Industrial Tribunal is spelt out under Section 7A of the I.D.Act which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in Schedule II or Schedule III. The reference to monetary benefits through wages is expressed as item No.1 in 3rd Schedule which refers to “wages, including the period and mode of payment”. Item 2 refers to “compensatory and other allowances. Item 7 refers to “classification by grades”. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Corporation is that a power to adjudicate on wages cannot mean the power to prescribe a particular scale of pay and the power to adjudicate on allowance also ought not mean that a Court could provide for specific CWP No.15125 of 2000 -3- allowance even when the terms of employment does not prescribe for the same. The classification of grades, again, according to the counsel, should be done on some rational principles and the Court cannot itself direct a particular classification to be made. Learned counsel refers the decision of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in S.C.Chandra and others V/s State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2007(8) SCC 279 in support of his contentions. In that case , on the issue of fixation of pay scales on principle of equal pay for equal work, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - (i) Fixation of pay scales by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the High constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. (ii) In recent years Supreme Court avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay). (iii) Only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply. (iv) Equation of posts and salary is complex mater which should be left to an expert body. (v) Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive discharge. (vi) Granting of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. 4. In case of State of Haryana and others V/s Charanjit Singh and others reported in 2006, AIR (SC) 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court CWP No.15125 of 2000 -4- held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not a mechanical exercise. The Supreme Court was interfering with the direction given by this Court directing that doctrine of equal pay for equal work be given to the persons who were claimants alongwith another section of the workman. The Supreme Court directed that the Court shall property adjudicate and decide afresh, having due regard the conduct of workers which the various classes of workman were doing and whether parity on wages was possible of being granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held as under: - That 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 by the responsibilities made a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. 5. In case of State of Punjab V/s Paramjit Singh and others reported in 2003 (12) SCC 58, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the same issue of scales of pay, held that as under: - That parity of pay scales of two different cadres at one stage CWP No.15125 of 2000 -5- does not mean equation shall be maintained at all times to come. The Pay commission or the competent authority can prescribe different pay scales for some valid reasons to be recorded. 6. In this case the learned Industrial Tribunal has allowed its own predilections of assessment of the risky nature of work of the fix grade over the persons who were working as clerks to eclipse his sense of objectivity and therefore, worthy of being paid higher wages. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also points out that the education qualifications for the persons in the Fire Brigade is Matric pass, whereas the Clerks are required to be Graduates. The clerks would have worked right during the year, but the persons in the Fire Brigade could not be said to be fully engaged except in times of the actual contingency of fire. It would be risky to undertake an exercise of determining what is more arduous for the purpose of rewarding a higher scale of pay on its subjective assessment that persons in Fire Brigade should be paid scales of pay of the selection grade for Clerks. The determination of adjudication relating to wages must be understood as an adjudication that would have a baring to payment to wages or not, where definite materials are available relating nature of work, when it can be prescribe parity. The designation which is awarded by the Labour Court that 40% of the workman should be in Grade -I with 10 years' of experience and another 40% persons to be taken as falling within a category of Grade-II after completion of 5 years' service is not an exercise that can fall within the realm of judicial activity. It shall reside only in the hands of the management. In a given case, the Court may have the power to decide on the reasonableness of such classification. But the Court by itself cannot undertake the classification of such grades. The Award passed by the CWP No.15125 of 2000 -6- Labour Court providing for particular scales of pay as also providing for designations are wholly without jurisdiction. The increase in allowances which the Court has provided for washing and for medical leave to be given in the same manner as in the Punjab Civil Services Rules should suffer for the same reason of its incompetence. It is contended by the counsel that the workman in the Fire Brigade are governed by Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rule, 1977. The said rules themselves are not in challenge before this Court. If there are any rules which are in unreasonable or are arbitrary and hence should fall foul of the relevant provisions of the Constitution on the basis of its arbitrary character, it would be a matter which would be examined, if such a dispute is brought before the Court. The Labour Court cannot substitute its own rules and prescribe the applicability of rules of Punjab Civil Services Rules with Fire Brigade Rules, 1977. The Fire Brigade Rules themselves have been framed in terms of the power vested in the competent authority under the provisions of Section 39 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. 7. The Award of the Labour Court cannot be justified on any ground and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 25.11.2009 (K.KANNAN) shamsher JUDGE