“Equal pay for equal work”:-

 

“Equal  pay for equal work”:-

It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of 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. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fine, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. Persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ can be extended to temporary employees(differently described as work charged,daily wage, casual adhoc,contractual and the like) it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour.An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities.

Principle of “Equal pay for equal work” is applicable to temporary employees-Claim of temporary employees, for minimum wages, at par with regularly engaged Government employees-cannot be declined on basis of decision of Supreme Court in 2009 AIR SCW-6759.

 

The following parameters mentioned in (State of Punjab & ors. Vs.Jagjit Singh & ors (2017) 1 SCC-148 ) for invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work” may be delineated:

 

1).The “onus of proof” of parity in the duties and responsibilities of subject post with the reference post under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the court has to establish that the subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value.(2003) 5 SCC-188(U.T.Chandigarh,Admn.vs.Manju Mathur,(2011) 2 SCC-452(SAIL vs.Dibyendu Bhattacharya) & (2014) 6 SCC-756(NALCO vs.Ananta Kishore Rout).

 

2).There mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in “different department” vis-à-vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government.(1982) 1 SCC-618(Randhir Singh vs.UOI) & D.S.Nakara vs.UOI (1983) 1 SCC-305.

 

3).The principle of “equal pay for equal work”, applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on classification or irrational classification. For equal pa, the employees concerned with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity.(Randhir Singh vs.UOI(1982) 1 SCC-618,(Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’Union vs.UOI(1991) 1 SCC-619,(S.C.Chandra vs.State of Jharkhand(2007) 8 SCC-279).

 

4).Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments),but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.Therefore,the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.(Randhir Singh vs.UOI (1982) 1 SCC-618,(Hukum Chand Gupta vs.ICAR(2012) 12 SCC-666).

5).In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar.(1988) 3 SCC-91,(2002) 4 SCC-556).The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.

 

6).For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on temporary basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale.(2003) 5 SCC-188).

 

7).Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as-“selection grade “But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as –merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria.. In the same post.(1989) 1 SCC-121(UP vs.J.P.Chaurasia).

 

8).If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-à-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable. In such a case the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be invoked.(2004) 1 SCC-347(WB.vs.Tarun Kr.Roy).

 

9).The reference post with which parity is claimed under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has to be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post.(Hukum Chand Gupta vs.ICAR(2012) 12 SCC-666).

 

10).A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be made where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having different management.(Official Liquidator vs.Dayanand(2008) 10 SCC-1).

 

11). If the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable. (2002) 4 SCC-556(SBI vs.M.R.Ganesh Babu).

 

12).The Priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable.(2002) 6 SCC-72)

 

13).The parity in pay, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable only when it is shown that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities.(2010) 5 SCC-225(WB vs.WB minimum wages inspectors assn.)

 

14). If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be applicable. (2011) 2 SCC-452(U.T.Chandigarh,Admn.Vs.Maju Mathur).

 

15).There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay scales between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e. between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar(2012) 12 SCC-666).

 

16).The principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues.(2012) 12 SCC-666).

 

17).Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, even if two organizations have a common employer.(2014) 6 SCC-756(NALCO vs.Ananta Kishore Rout)….(2017)1 SCC-148(State of Punjab & ors.vs. Jagjit Singh & ors)