Case: U.P.State Yarn Company Limited and Anr Vs. G.M.Garg and Anr

The U.P. State Yarn Co.Ltd. is in appeal against the impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No.28384/1991 dated 14.3.1996. The respondent was holding the post of Manager (P & IR). He filed the Writ Petition claiming parity with the post of Manager (P & IR) under UPSTC (U.P. State Textile Corporation) and U.P. State Spinning Co.Ltd. on the ground that he discharges the similar duty and similar responsibility and therefore the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work should apply. The High Court by the impugned order on consideration of the materials produced before it accepted the prayer of the respondent and has granted the relief sought for. The contention of the appellant before this Court is that the High Court has not properly evaluated the nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by Manager (P & IR) in :2; the appellant Company vis-a-vis the Manager (P & IR) in other two sister concern and therefore the impugned direction directing Equal Pay for Equal Work is erroneous and could not have been made. We have been taken through a chart indicating the scale of pay of officers in STC/SSC/SYC (the appellants) before us. That chart indicates that out of 23 different categories of posts there is variation only in the scale of pay attached to the Manager (P & IR) and not in any other post. In this state of affairs, we see no infirmity with the impugned direction of the High Court directing that the Manager (P & IR) in the appellants compnay should be entitled to the same scale of pay as is given to the Manager (P & IR) under STC/SSC. We therefore do not find any justification for our interference with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]That chart indicates that out of 23 different categories of posts there is variation only in the scale of pay attached to the Manager (PIR) and not in any other post. In this state of affairs, we see no infirmity with the impugned direction of the High Court directing that the Manager (PIR) in the appellants compnay should be entitled to the same scale of pay as is given to the Manager (PIR) under STC/SSC. We therefore do not find any justification for our interference with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution.