JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J.
To bring the case within the sweep of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India it was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the posts for filling up the vacancies for the Headquarter Staff as well as Manufacturing Unit are advertised jointly. The process of the selection is also similar. Appointments are made by the same authority. The appointment orders indicate that the posts are transferable from manufacturing unit to the headquarter and vice versa. Hence the employees of manufacturing units are entitled for the same emoluments which the headquarter staff gets.
2. The contention of the respondents is that the persons working in the manufacturing unit and in the headquarter are of different cadres. The posts are not transferable, but it was considered that often transfers from one post to another are made by the authorities concerned.
3. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982-I-LLJ- 344)(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated:-
"The doctrine of 'Equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared a fundamental right under the Constitution. But Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 declares the constitutional goal enjoining the State not to deny any person equality before law in matters relating to employment including the scales of pay. The doctrine is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay."
4. It is pertinent to emphasize that Article 14 abhors discrimination, but does not rule out classification. The plea of Article 14 can be entertained only when employees hold the same rank, perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities. Although in the writ petition it was averred that employees working in manufacturing units as well as at the headquarter hold the same rank, perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities but the fact remains that the employees working in manufacturing unit perform certain functions and discharge certain duties and responsibilities which is confined within the manufacturing unit. It cannot be said that the persons working at the headquarter perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities. There appears to be qualitative difference between their functions, duties and responsibilities.
5. In the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India 1988 (57) FLR 258 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated:-
"Equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 but equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right. Equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done; 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 but the responsibilities make a difference. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. In the case of stenographers and personal assistants, there is an element of faith, reliability and responsibility. The differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, i.e. on intelligible basis."
In the above case it was further observed.:
"There is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. Differentiation in implementing the award or the recommendations of Pay Commission without rational basis may amount to discrimination. But so long as such value judgment is made bonafide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the objection of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination."
In the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989-I-LLJ-309) (SC) it was observed "It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be same or similar, but there may be difference in degree in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
In the case of Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS (1989-II-LLJ-578)(SC) the same principle was reported "In judging the equality of work for the purposes of equal pay, regard must be had not only to the duties and functions but also to the educational qualifications, qualitative difference and the measures of responsibility prescribed for the respective posts. Even if the duties and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus. and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Equality must be among the equals, unequals cannot claim equality."
In the case of Umesh Chandra Gupta v. ONGC (1989-I-LLJ-74)(SC) it was indicated in Para 4 at page 75.
"What applies to the Government and government servants must equally apply to any management and its employees. The nature of work and responsibilities of the posts are matters to be evaluated by the management and not for the Court to determine by relying upon the averments in the affidavits of interested parties. If the management for good reasons have classified the posts into two categories with different pay scale the courts generally must accept unless it is demonstrated that it is patently erroneous either in law or on fact."
In the case Harbans Lal v. State of H.P. (1989-II-LLJ-466). Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"A claim for equal pay can be sustained only if the impugned discrimination is within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management or even in establishments in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master. Hence the petitioners, who are employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Handicraft Corporation, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, cannot claim wages payable to their counterparts in Government service."
6. In the present case at the most it can be said that the qualifications, duties and functions of those who are working in manufacturing unit and at the headquarter may be the same, but it cannot be said that there exists no qualitative difference and measure of responsibility between the employees working in manufacturing unit and at the headquarter.
7. There is another aspect which requires consideration by this Court.
8. On April 5, 1989 during the pendency of the writ petition there was an agreement between the management as well as the employees. The agreement indicates that the management, in principle, accepted the demand of the employees that the employees working in manufacturing units deserve to be paid the same grade which are given to headquarter staff. The agreements further provide that the necessary formalities regarding the fixation of their scale would be completed by June 30, 1989 and the Managing Director in that regard would form a Committee which would enter into a dialogue with the employees and thereafter the grades would be fixed. The Managing Director of the Unit agreed to give interim relief to the extent of 17% to the employees with effect from a particular date in the year 1989. The minimum interim relief would be to the extent of Rs. 150/- and the maximum would be to the extent of Rs. 600/- which would be adjusted in the grade at the time of fixation of the grade. In view of the offer made, the employees association decided to withdraw this writ petition. On August 11, 1989, the Managing Director passed an order which reads as under:
"For some time past demand for allowing graded scale of pay, instead of consolidated salary, to the officers of the units was being received. The matter was considered in the wider perspective and pending formulation of graded scales and fixation, interim relief @17% subject to minimum of Rs. 150/- and maximum of Rs. 600/- was allowed on consolidated salary to the officers (getting consolidated salary) with effect from October 1, 1988. To examine the matter and suggest grades etc. a committee under the Chairmanship of M-D-SSM-1 was constituted to examine connected matters and submit its report. The recommendations of the committee have since been received and have been given due consideration. After taking into consideration all relevant factors it has been decided that the officers of the units be allowed graded scale of pay."
9. On October 17, 1990 the Managing Director again passed an order which is indicated below:
"Vide Order No. 3977-81/SIC (5) -244/89 dated August 11, 1989 regular scales were allowed to unit officers with effect from October 1, 1988. In JMC meeting held on January 10, 1990 it has been decided that the grades of the unit staff will be revised with effect from October 1, 1988 and for one post one scale formula has been adopted, as per details given in the order."
10. The above order shows that the grades of the members of the petitioners association were revised and they were given graded scales instead of consolidated pay. Initially, two separate pay scales were prescribed for the same post; one in the lower scale and the other in the higher scale. The higher scale was prescribed for those persons who had completed five years or more service. However, later on vide order dated October 17, 1990 it was decided that the grade of unit staff be revised, from October 1, 1988 and for one post one scale formula was adopted. The demand of the petitioners association with regard to the fixation of two separate pay scales depending solely on the length of service also stands fulfilled, inasmuch as for one post one scale formula has been adopted. The demand of the petitioners association for placing its members in regular pay scales also stood fulfilled.
11. It was averred in the supplementary counter-affidavit that the only employees working in Head Office were covered by Second Pay Commission recommendation and accordingly, the Beaurp/State Government approved the pay scale applicable to the employees working at the Head Office only and it was not applicable to the employees working at the manufacturing unit on consolidated salary at that time. It was further submitted by the respondents that the service conditions of the employees working at the manufacturing unit are entirely different from those employees at the Head Office. The employees working at the Manufacturing Unit are covered by Factories Act and various other enactments which are not applicable to the employees at the Head Office,
12. It was further indicated that the order dated August 11, 1989 clearly stated that the scales mentioned in the order envisaged similar D.A. pattern which was admissible to the employees posted in the Corporation/Company. The same D.A. pattern was allowed to the employees posted in the Corporation /Company. It was submitted that to that extent the grievance of the petitioners' unit had been satisfied but as far as H.R.A. is concerned, the employees posted at the Headquarter were not being given facility of official occupation hence they were given H.R.A. As far as employees of the units are concerned, they are provided accommodation, hence they are not entitled for H.R.A. Only those officers who have not been provided accommodations are given H.R.A. All the employees working in the manufacturing units have filled up the option forms and have opted for being placed in the graded scales without any objection and they were drawing the salary accordingly. One of the conditions in the option form was that, after its acceptance all disputes/demands etc relating to pay scales and allowances and connected matters would stand fully satisfied and no dispute regarding that matter would be raised before any authority or Court. Thus all such disputes stood finally set-tied. It was contended that all employees filled up the option forms and hence they are not entitled to raise any dispute before this Court.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the employees had no option, but to sign the agreement and the option forms, which is not binding upon them and in this regard several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court have been cited. We are of the view that the members of the petitioners, who were already in service, had an alternative, either to fill up the option form or to reject the option form. If they would have not opted for the graded scales, which had given them certain benefits, the management could not have forced them to sign the option, because such an act would have amounted to an unfair labour practice, for which the authorities of the Corporation could be hauled up by the Labour Court. After filling the option form they opted for the graded scale, which more or less gave them parity in the matter of emoluments with the headquarter staff. Even if there still exists any disparity, the petitioners cannot raise a grievance, as their cases do not fall within the ambit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, because they have failed to prove that there is no qualitative difference with regard to the duties and responsibilities. The cases of the petitioners were considered by the Committee, which has given them a graded scale, after much deliberations in which they participated, and accepted the recommendations willingly. The same amount of work may entail different quality of work. Some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, which varies from nature and culture of the employment. There may be qualitative difference, between the duties and responsibilities of the employees, working in manufacturing units and employees working at the headquarter. It is not for this Court to evaluate and pass judgments in such matters. It cannot be said that the decision which has been taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation, which is based on the report given by a Committee, is not bonafide and is not based on reasonable and intelligible criterion which has rational nexus with the object of decision. If differentiation still exists, it will not amount to discrimination, as they belong to different cadre of service.
14. In view of what has been indicated here-inabove, the writ petition has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed.