Puran Chand v. Haryan Urban Development Authority

 





    

 



  

  

 
 

  !  "#$%&'()*  # 

+(


  









  ! "#

, -. - /*&  (

*&- /*&  (





$ 

% & 

0   (  &'  1  (    %  '    *' 234 
 56. 1   mandamus . (.

' (. ) .

'(#'* */%#(('#. 789 '# 89 '6:  %16. '').&(  ..   .

' ( (()






; ' ( inter alia    (1((* *'#1.1 ) < 2 << 0 (1''1 &   1=)))%')'>

<<2 *= 

0 ( = & 

 (    '  ) '#  )    0   (   = '')16(' ) (/(1   .

' ( 0  16.  /9 '/9 '#9 #  16 ()'  . ')('# 0  ( %16.   (  /  '9 '(#9 '16&1 ?

.)%# &@  
 (


(()* '+ ,,-'7
 

:decided on 17.04.1998 A  /   (9 '#&%# ?

.) ":%'*(=
 

 

 :



 ; '') 
   (1 .

' . (# (( *  / (#    (  ..  .

'    %       

"1&/ (# (..9 '(#9 '

16 . (&) ?

.)%#  &@  
 7  

!


"   : #   ! $ /&( >

"              (   ''     9  '  @
) " (  - '(()  #<</    &   ' %9 '(#9 '16) ?

.) %# ":%'- ()
 7


" 

%&"'

'&  : #$( !$(

;   '       (
(     (#  ')=   ) 

) .

'1.   & #<< "1&/  %)  (&'

'#( ?%11''1 ) 5 (.1  )/   ' &( ) "'(''  ?

.) ":%'- ()
 7

 

!')"  : ## $ 

1 / ":%'- ()
   (#)('#) (('89 '#89 '

6'#1.)('#

; ' (& .

)(   %#' ' ( %)  '(' !')"* +  ,''#)('  ( .

 %' 5/ ":%'- ()
  !')"* +  ,  '  (('%'# (('89 '#89 '

69 )('1 ''#%1. ()('# ').'(#'  . (/1  &'#   (#' 5'#  ') %'  %9 &'1  '  . 

    

"&. ' ' (( '  1  %'/(  (11. ='#/1 / 116... '&##.

.

'(#'  0 (  '')&  (()      %  ().  '   /  9 '&'#   &'#/      .

'   (  *    /      '       '''#(#'. 16. (* 

 * A  /1B .%  ":%'*(=
 7

  

 * 

 

/   (('89 '#89 '6(6.

  . B - @ ?

)/ ''1.1 ' C7. Having given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions we find that before a set of employees can claim parity of pay scales on the principles of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' it has to be shown by such claimants that qualitatively and quantitatively the work which they do is of the same type and nature as that of their counterparts whose pay scales are pressed in service for getting the parity. Not only that but even educational qualifications must be identical."

; ' ( % %' 1    .%# ()   .%# .

' ( 5  (  ))'=%1 & (  .

' (/ 1&/ '#%)(   ( 11 )&/1  1''#( '  .).&. )  ' ()# &?& '#1.%/) &1 (. '( * *1'#&'%' A  / (( .@
)  "'')/1  1 9  ' .

'( 0 / (  '#=16  (' 9 '&'# &'#)'  .

')('#16. ) (/1  ((('#) . ) 

0 D89 '#89 '6D('#   '( '( #' &'

  -  '

* *' 
 5%%#) ''.%'/*'><   . '.   ) (&  9 '  (#    9 '  16/    )    1)  '6  0    (&''1 "- '+(./0'

1 The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. - '+ . '
'+', 
'+ 21 

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing- (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;"

'#/*'><  )(&('- '#?

%''/ 1&/ 89 '# '6 %'&%' '. %#) *'2/%#  '()'?

 *  B .%  ":%'- ()
 ' '&

3' 4' 5  $5/1 '(6.  . B 


(( +#/) ''1.%& . "8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. - '+ (   

 ' "' 

 , 0'

 1 0, + ' 1 - '+$+    0'

    ,, '

      +'

'6  '  

   '&   ,    ,,'      '+     

 ! 0'

+  

 '

  '& 7

/ !    7

 "'

      ,,    0'

  +    

 '1 '&' ++1'

 1)  , &

 To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber8barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched.

Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need' , it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognised by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code.

Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too. Under provisions in Section 31(g.No. 2d) of Book 1 of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinean law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance (vide : International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p. 265).

The preamble of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled" .

'&- '+ ($' '& 
- '+ 1 7'1  ,'+',8/0 ,    /0 1)8  '

 +'       - '+      ,,  ,,'    +    0  +    ,        +

''+ '    ' '  +

''+ '  &    1'& ' + ,' '+1)  , )( 

- <

/  ''1.    -  )('#    (#  9 '  1.   '161 '''#) &'.1 )') 1  1 '& '%'16&'

# %)/)(''.

 ) %1 &&''( -   ) .# (%'%.&'*' A# '%(%'/''.%''=  %?) %''#)  5% )/    (''#=('&/1  (''#('%'1'-'6 

0 )((&.(# ((' 16/& )(#)('#/1')( %# ? .)%#1 .%  ":%'- ()
    ):

:'7'

'2

;'+<; #54= #

> 1 /1 '(6.

  . B ;

E.1+/ ''1.1( "10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that

,,   11&  '' , + 1'+,,'+  &, '&

,

."



 )/'.res integra  (('  89 '#89 '6'#. ( ')   ''#  ).      #    %.  (  '        /  /9 '/(%'/9  )16 #() ( )%.' 9 '# )('#1 1 )

( (#  .     %'     )'#)'#  ('%  ') %''# .%'1  % ( (1 (()  (/  1)('#%(1..'1    # /'#1./)(#/ '/ ')('#

E%'#/ '( (  (  .)  .

'* * *1B . @    ":%'*(=
   !')"* +  ,$ (6.

  . B *?#/ '''1 . "11. "Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its ,,'+''

  +,     1   '    1 a group of employees +''&  ' '+  ,  +         &,   , who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula." 

*1B .@  ":%'- ()
  


"

%&"'

'& # (5   (('%'#  89 '#89 '6 in extenso  (6.  .

B. -. F  /) ''1.%&/ "44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned temporary employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', with reference to regular employees: (i) In the :'' case this Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted. !+ ' ,'&  1&> ,'

 1)'&  >1 + ' 7' '7- '+(

  

 ' It was held that the action amounted to exploitation 8 in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society.

, (ii) In the ' '& case this Court held that the right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the :

=) case.

(iii) In the ?&1:

case this Court recorded that '+' 01& >  '1'+,1 '      '  &&>  1    )   '+  >  + ',,'  1)'+ And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. -')1' >1 

,,'  1 '@''

 ' '@  > >''

 '>1  + ' '+ 0 '>'  ,,'+''

 ,'+', A0,01)*'

++  It was held that the +'01& 1 

'1, 0' '

+& '' '  , '''

' 

&, > ++,,

0''+ ' , +' ,

In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question was not sustainable because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year8to8year basis.

(iv) In the :'   /,
<!

:,  &? ':)!B6B+ case this Court held that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution, C7  +        , , 

''1&'&,' , '    + ,'&  &  +>  &  1'

  

1+'

'

1+> 1   '

1'+1'&@  + 1)

It was also held that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi8 skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories, for payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was

 also held that such an act of an employer would amount to exploitation, and further that the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(v) In


"7 :7' '&, (1998) 9 SCC 595, this Court held that '.1& 1  ,+' '' ,.

+&, >1)'&&'

 ,

 The above direction was issued after accepting that the concerned employees were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post, by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

(vi) In the + >

D ) case, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily8wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularisation. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularisation. ?   ++,  1    

,,'+>1 ',,'>  '

,,'

.'

1)+, 1   The judgment rendered by the High Court was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily8 wage employees were directed to be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the concerned cadre. (vii) In

7 "'

'&, 2006 (3) S.C.T.

170 : (2006) 9 SCC 321, a three8Judge Bench of this Court held that the decisions rendered by this Court in

7

%  '&, (1996) 11 SCC 77;

7 !')", 2003 (4) S.C.T. 485 : (2003) 6 SCC 123; the ;'

3'7  -&'+ <!+& case; and C7 E ?

7

!D , 2004 (1) S.C.T. 78 : (2004) 1 SCC 347, laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared that '  ++'.1&, +

'

  1 ,'&01)00'

> 7 +   1  '>    '+ '         ,  + , 01&   ''& 1'

, ' 1"

''

(viii) In

3
7 


' , (2006) 9 SCC 337, based on decisions in several cases (wherein the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' had been invoked), it was held that a '.1& '

+&'& '' '   &&& >

 1  1'

1&  '' ,.

+1'

+ , ,,' & , but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments. (ix) In the 3


  :7, , ' case this Court noticed that the  ,  1  ,   + +  >+ '   ? >+  1 + ,,'  , 1) ,

-

 /&'>  '

   '+     ,    ,   , 1& ' '' ,.

+  +'

,

-

 /&'

X X X

55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. -,&&   1)>+ ,'

 >1,   '

 , '''

'

 ' >'1

++ ' ' '&'&>

')  7 ' '&'

 ->1'

+, 1) 

1&>   7 '  > ,7'   '

'> +

'

 ,+ '&'

> +

'

1 >  +

'

' &'

 For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. -+ > ,'&

1& > +,   ''  >+



+ @,'

'7 7 >&'& ''& , '

  Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."  )( 

 



0 
  (  )% (  -&'# ( ' .#'% %# %.=('&1. ( %#/(& ')? ('.%#  )%' *#'

 .)'#)&'(%  ( %  -: #  % /.#9 '# 0 &'

   
  prima facie(% %/&.'

 )('#1 /(().'  )'/ )) )  5 )(&    &%' 1''()( %' )('#)/%   )('#(&   ) G# >

5&1  %&/ 
          9 '       (    '      . '  ( 0 / ?

 1.%.)'

*.'#/ ((''1 0 (.  )) ) .

'(#' (* *  (/'.1 ''9 '%/'

./)   (()/1 (>) )( (#   

.)'' (('/#/ ''( 

% 



&

 (  * Neha   (6.3  H3E   (%'  H3E