Case: Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd &amp; Another Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

the respondent - corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, in 1970, the said parity was disturbed in 1973 when the pay scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula. The parity was sought to be restored in 1976 when the pay scales of the employees in the respondent - corporation were also revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula, though with effect from a later date. It was again disturbed when the pay scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in 1977 and 1982 there was no similar revision in the pay scales of the employees in the respondent - corporation.14. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that respondent - corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India are distinct legal entities carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity in pay scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. It is no doubt true that the respondent - corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that both are instrumentalities of the Government of India who is bound by the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution.15. In this context it may be pointed out that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in its order dated March 14, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 12655 of 1986 and connected matters, the Government of India had appointed a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice R. B. Misra, to go into the various aspects relating to pay scales and other incidental matters such as additional D. A., interim relief and other allowances to the employees working in the Public Sector governed by the Central Government pay scales and D. A. The said Committee after considering the pay scales in the various Public Enterprises having Central Government pattern of D A., has recommended uniform pay scales for the employees including subordinate staff falling in the categories of (i) Attendant, Messenger, Peon, Watchman, Safaiwala, Mali, etc.; (ii) Daftry, Jamadar, Head Watchman etc.; (iii) Record Keeper, Record Sorter, Junior Clerks etc.; and (iv) U.D.C., Assistants etc. The Committee was of the view that rationalisation of the present heterogeneous structure of pay scales was required in the interests of uniform remuneration for similar work in the different enterprises." (Page 65 para 8.16). In Jute Corporation of India Officers Association v. Jute Corporation of India Limited, (JT 1990 (2) SC 255 ), this Court has given directions for applying the revised pay scales recommended by the said Committee to the various Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India having the Central Government pattern of D. A. This shows that there would be parity in pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories, with which we are concerned, in the various enterprises of the Government of India which are following the Central Government D. A. pattern. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having the same pay scales in 1970. We are, therefore, of the view that the pay scales of the employees in the unionised cadre falling in the four categories referred to above in the respondent - corporation should be revised in a way that the same are at par with the pay scales of such employees employed with the Cotton Corporation of India. 16. State of U.P. v. J. P. Chaurasia (AIR 1989 SC 19 ) (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Shri Mahajan deals with the question as to equation of duties and responsibilities for applying the principle of ,equal pay for equal work. Therein this Court has held that the matter of equation of posts for the purpose of equation of pay must be left to the executive and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission and that if there is such a determination by a Commission or Committee the Court should normally accept it. The principle laid down in the said decision was reiterated in the other decisions relied upon by Shri Mahajan. Here we are not concerned with equation of posts because the posts falling in the abovementioned four categories of employees in the respondent corporation as well as the Cotton Corporation of India are of the same level and employees working on these posts were having the same pay scales in 1970. There is nothing on the record to show that after 1970 there has been any change in the duties and functions of the persons holding these posts in the two corporations which may justify fixation of different pay scales for these posts in the two corporations. The pay scales of the petitioners as revised by order dated April 25, 1986, cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondents Nos. 1 and 3 should so revise the pay scales of the petitioners as to be at par with pay scales enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on the date from which the said revised pay scales are to be applied. Under order dated April 25, 1986, the revision of the pay scales of the petitioners has been made with effect from August 1, 1983 and is valid up to July 31, 1987. The revision in the pay scales of the petitioners should be made keeping in view the pay scales and allowances enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on August 1, 1983 and such revision may be made operative up to July 31, 1987, as provided in the order date April 25, 1986.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. In our view the respondents are right in pointing out that the guidelines dated November 27, 1982, issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises which have been issued with regard to the revision of pay scales of the officers in Government undertakings and they do not apply to subordinate staff like the petitioners in these writ petitions. The petitioners, therefore, cannot seek any relief on the basis of the said guidelines. As regards the payment of dearness allowance on industrial pattern, we find that the employees in the unionised cadre in the respondentcorporation are being paid dearness allowance on the industrial D. A. pattern ever since the revision of their pay scales under order dated Dec. 28, 1976 with effect from August 1, 1976, and the revised pay scales under order dated April 25, 1986, also envisage payment of dearness allowance on Industrial D. A. pattern. Theonly question which needs to be examined in these writ petitions is whether the revision on the pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories mentioned above in the unionised cadre in the respondentcorporation under order dated April 25, 1986 suffers from any legal infirmity.The petitioners have assailed the said fixation on the ground that they have been denied parity with other employees similarly situate employed with the Cotton Corporation of India and they want their pay scales to be revised on the same pattern.It is thus evident that although in l970 there was parity in the pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories referred to above who were employed with the respondentcorporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, the said parity was disturbed in course of time on account of the fact that in the Cotton Corporation of India there was timely revision in the pay scales in 1973, 1977 and 19821 whereas in the respondent corporation, the revision in the pay scales was after a much longer gap in 1976 and 1983. The revised pay scales granted to the employees of the Cotton Corporation of India with effect from January 1, 1973 were given to the employees of the respondentcorporation with effect from August 1, 1976. The said pay scales were fixed as per the Third Central Pay Commission formula which had come into force with effect from January 1, 1973. This would show that while the employees of the Cotton Corporation of India were given the revised pay scales in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula with effect from January 1, 1973, when the revised pay scales as recommended by the Third Pay Commission were brought into force, the employees of the respondentcorporation were given the said revised pay scales from a later date, i.e. August 1, 1976. In the Cotton Corporation of India the employees had a revision of their pay scales with effect from October 1, 1977 and a further revision with effect from September 1, 1982 whereas in the respondentcorporation there was no revision in the pay scales after the revision of 1976 till the passing of the order dated April 25, 1986 during the pendency of these writ petitions whereby the pay scales have been revised with effect from August 11 1983. The revised pay scales fixed under order dated April 25, 1986, are, however, much lower than the pay scales of similar employees in the Cotton Corporation of India which were fixed with effect from September 1, 1982. Thus, we find that though there was parity in the pay scales of the employees falling in the categories mentioned above in the respondentcorporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, in 1970, the said parity was disturbed in 1973 when the pay scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula. The parity was sought to be restored in 1976 when the pay scales of the employees in the respondentcorporation.14. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that respondentcorporation and the Cotton Corporation of India are distinct legal entities carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity in pay scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. It is no doubt true that the respondentcorporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that both are instrumentalities of the Government of India who is bound by the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution.15. In this context it may be pointed out that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in its order dated March 14, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 12655 of 1986 and connected matters, the Government of India had appointed a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice R. B. Misra, to go into the various aspects relating to pay scales and other incidental matters such as additional D. A., interim relief and other allowances to the employees working in the Public Sector governed by the Central Government pay scales and D. A. The said Committee after considering the pay scales in the various Public Enterprises having Central Government pattern of D A., has recommended uniform pay scales for the employees including subordinate staff falling in the categories of (i) Attendant, Messenger, Peon, Watchman, Safaiwala, Mali, etc.; (ii) Daftry, Jamadar, Head Watchman etc.; (iii) Record Keeper, Record Sorter, Junior Clerks etc.; and (iv) U.D.C., Assistants etc. The Committee was of the view that rationalisation of the present heterogeneous structure of pay scales was required in the interests of uniform remuneration for similar work in the different enterprises." (Page 65 para 8.16). In Jute Corporation of India Officers Association v. Jute Corporation of India Limited, (JT 1990 (2) SC 255 ), this Court has given directions for applying the revised pay scales recommended by the said Committee to the various Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India having the Central Government pattern of D. A. This shows that there would be parity in pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories, with which we are concerned, in the various enterprises of the Government of India which are following the Central Government D. A. pattern. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having the same pay scales in 1970. We are, therefore, of the view that the pay scales of the employees in the unionised cadre falling in the four categories referred to above in the respondentcorporation should be revised in a way that the same are at par with the pay scales of such employees employed with the Cotton Corporation of India.