Petitioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, has, in this petition, challenged the legality of award dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar. By such judgment, the learned Tribunal was pleased to allow reference of the respondents-workmen and ordered that they shall be granted pay scale of Rs.260-400 and should be granted consequential benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation on such basis. Respondents-workmen were initially engaged on daily rate basis for the work of a post called “Key Man”. Their services were regularized by passage of time. Upon regularization, they were placed at Rs.210-
270 (pre-revised), as per the settlement between the Corporation and the workers.
The grievance of the respondents-workmen was that they should have been placed in the scale of Rs.260-
400 which was a grade granted to other posts such as “Meter Reader and Non Metric Time Keeper”. The Tribunal, in the impugned award, considered the evidence produced by both sides on record. On behalf of the workmen, it was pointed out that they were paid at the same rate as causal employees engaged for the work of other two posts, namely, that of “Non Metric Time Keeper and Meter Reader”. They also prayed for parity in the scales on the ground of similarity of educational qualification and nature of duties.
On the other hand, employer-Corporation, opposed the prayer on the ground that the workmen were regularized on the post of “Key Man”. They were placed in the correct scale of Rs.210-270. With the experience, educational qualification, etc. required, for different posts being vastly different, the pay scales of such posts cannot be compared. They also did not agree that the nature of work in such post was similar.
The Tribunal, however, granted the prayers for up-gradation of scale of pay on following three factors. (i) That the respondents-workmen were drawing the wages at the same rate as those engaged for the work of Time Keeper and Meter Reader on causal basis. (ii) That none of the posts required any special educational qualification. (iii) That no special skills are required for performing the duties of any of these three posts.
To my mind, the Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the award in favour of the respondents-workmen.
The principle of equal pay for equal work has its inbuilt limitations. Merely on the basis of similarity in educational qualification required for different posts, pay parity cannot be granted. For applying principles for equal pay for equal work, the Court has to be conscious and ascertain various factors, such as nature of work, duties to be performed, the workload in different posts, the education and experience criteria required for engagement in respective posts and such other relevant factors. Most importantly, in the present case, the Tribunal omitted even to make any detailed reference to the nature of duties of different posts. Admittedly all the three posts carried entirely different duties. The Tribunal also did not realize that the educational qualification required for each post was different. Most significantly, without comparing the nature of duties, the Tribunal proceeded to grant higher pay scale to the workmen which scale was not provided for the post they were holding.
Merely because, the workmen, while in initial ad- hoc engagement, were drawing wages at the same rate at the workers doing the work of other two posts, cannot be a factor to grant pay parity. There can be several reasons why the wages for discharging the duties for casual basis may have been similar, such as, fixed pay system, minimum wage structure and such other reasons. Merely because the respondents-workmen during their casual engagement were drawing wages at the same rate as that of the other casual workers discharging duties of other two posts, cannot be a factor for granting up-gradation.
In case of State of Gujarat V/s. Saurashtra Mazdoor Sangh reported in 2004(2) GLH 50; the Division Bench of this Court observed that Equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not of the judiciary and Courts ordinarily ought not to enter into such a task of job evaluation.
In case of Union of India and Another V/s. P.V. Hariharan and Another reported in (1997) 3 SCC 568, the Apex Court strongly deprecated the pattern of the administration of Tribunal interfering with the pay scales without proper reasons, it was observed as under:
“4. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning or approach of the Tribunal. The pay scale of tool Room Assistant in I.F.P. is Rs 800-1150/-. In other words, the maximum of the said pay scale is not "over Rs. 1150/-" so as to fall within Group-C. The post properly fell under Group-D because it carried a pay, the maximum of which was "Rs.1150/-or less". "Over Rs.1150/-" means Rs.1151/- and above. "Rs.1150/-" cannot be characterized as "over Rs.1150/-". The said post, therefore, properly fell under Group-D and not under Group-C. Assuming that the said post was mentioned under Group-C, it may be - or may not - an error. What is material is that the classification cannot result in change of pay scale from Rs 800- 1150/- to rs 1150-2900/-. This is simply unimaginable. Pay scales are what are prescribed for each post by the government which is very often done on the basis of recommendations of a pay Commission or a similar expert body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of Pay scales; it only classifies posts into several grounds based upon the pay Scales already fixed. Classification and prescribing pay scales for several posts are two different and distinct functions. The Tribunal’s order is, in our opinion, wholly unsustainable in law. The reasons given in support of the impugned order are ambiguous and vague. The impugned order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside., Sri Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondents. however, submitted that the respondents had also raised the plea of "equal pay for equal work" on the basis of the pay scale granted to Tool Room Assistants in the CIFNET, but that the Tribunal has not dealt with it. We, therefore, remit the matter to deal with the said ground according to law and pass final orders in the Original Application.
5. Change of Pay scale of a category has cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above the below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realises that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter”.
In case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Charanjit Singh and others etc. reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5632, the Apex Court observed that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. Such principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical application in every case.
In case of Deb Narayan Shyam and others V/s. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2005 AIR SCW 172, the Apex Court examined the nature of duties and functions being performed by different set of employees turned down the request for pay parity.
More recently, in case of Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others V/s. Manju Mathur and another reported in (2011) 2 SCC 452, the Apex Court reiterated that doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. It was observed as under:
“12. This Court has held in recent case State of M.P. V/s. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated and that similarity of the designation or nature of quantum of work isnot determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that the Court has to consider several factors and only if there was wholesale identity between the holders of the two posts, equality clause can be invoked, not otherwise.
13. This Court has also held in State of Haryana & Others v. Charanjit Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 321] that normally the applicability of principle of equal pay for equal work must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and these are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. This Court has further held in this decision that it is only when the High Court is convinced on the basis of material placed before it that there was equal work and of equal quality and that all other relevant factors were fulfilled, it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of filing of the respective writ petition”.
Considered from any angle, the award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Despite clear dissimilarity in educational qualification and the nature of duties being performed by the respondents- workmen as compared to the persons holding the post of Meter Reader and Time Keeper on the basis of equal pay for equal work. The Tribunal directed up-gradation of pay scale of workmen which was wholly impermissible.
In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Rule made absolute. No costs.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (ashish)