Grih Kalyan
Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India & Ors [1991] INSC 2 (9 January 1991)
Singh,
K.N. (J) Singh, K.N. (J) Ojha, N.D.
(J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1173 1991 SCR (1) 15 1991 SCC (1) 619 JT 1991 (1) 60 1991 SCALE (1)1
ACT:
Constitution
of India 1950-- Articles 14 and 16--Equal pay for equal work--Principle-=-Grih Kalyan
Kendra employees --Treatment on par with employees of Union of India, New Delhi
Municipal Committee and Delhi Administration--Whether arises.
HEAD NOTE:
Grih Kalyan
Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1960. It is
a welfare organization working under the aegis of the Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs. Its object is to
establish Kendras to help needy Government servants especially those belonging
to the lower income group by providing to their dependents opportunity of
gainful work and training during their leisure time so that the dependents of
such Government servants may be able to supplement to the meagre income of the
family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining employment elsewhere.
In furtherance of this object, the kendra has set up nursery centres, craft centres,
and creches etc.
In Delhi and other cities where the work of
imparting necessary training is carried on. The management of the Kalayan Kendras
vests in the Board which consists of officers of the Department of Personnel
and in order to augment its resources the Ministry gives grant to the kendras.
The terms and conditions or tenure of service of its employees have not been
regulated by any Rules framed by the kendra. The staff of the Kendras fall in
two categories viz. (i) regular staff taken on deputation from other central
government offices who draw their salaries in regular scales of pay with the
deputation and other allowances as admissible to the central government
employees and (ii) employees employed at the various centres of the kendra on
ad-hoc basis, some of whom have been working an fixed salary called honorarium
while others are working on the piece rate wages, without any gratuity or
pension or Provident fund.
The
Workers' Union of the Kendra has filed this writ petition for a declaration
that the kendra wherein the workers are employed is a 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and such it is prayed by them that a
writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay regular pay scale
on par with other employees- 16 performing similar work under the Union of
India, New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi
Administration, as according to them wages paid to them are low as compared to
the employees performing identical duties in the said Departments. Their
contention is that the Kendra being a 'State', the respodents are under
constitutional obligation to pay them higher scale of pay prescribed for the
Government Departments, on the principle "equal pay for equal work".
They have raised claim to pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. also. The
respondents contest their claim on the plea that the employees working in the kendra
are not regular employees and the duties performed by them are not comparable
to any of the employees working under NDMC or any other DEPARTMENT OF THE Delhi
Administration or Union of India, the Status of the Kendra being unique.
Dismissing
the writ petition the Court,
HELD:
There being no other Government or semi- Government employees who can be
regarded, even broadly, as being situated similarly as the employees of the
Kendra, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be said to be violated
by the payment of mere honorarium to these employees. [27E] The findings
recorded by the former Chief Justice to whom the matter was referred earlier
clearly shows that there has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not
being discriminated from those who are situated equally.
The
petitioner's claim for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, therefore must
fail. Their claim for the issue of direction to the respondents to provide for
the pension, gratuity and provident fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan
must also fail. [27H; 28A-B] Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India and ors., [1979] 3 SCC 489; P.K. Ramachandra lyer & Ors.
v. Union of India and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 141; B.S. Minhas v.Indian
Statistical Institute and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 582; Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad
v. Union of india and ors., [1985] 2 S.C.C. 644; Surya Narain Yadav &
Ors. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, [1985] 3 SCC 38; Randhir
Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 1 SCC 618; Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed
under P Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P.,[1986] 1 SCC 637, Engineer-in-Chief,
CPWD R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, [1987] 4 SCC 505; Bhagwan
Dass v.State of- 17 Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of Haryana,
[1988] 3 SCC 354; Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees
Association and Ors. v. State of karnataka and Others, [1990] 2 SCC 396;
Federation Of all India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of
India, [19890 3 SCC 1, referred to. & ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
No. 869 of 1988.
(Under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Govind Mukhoty, Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalitha Kaushik for the
Petitioner.
V.C. Mahajan,
Girish Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. This is a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner Union or
Behalf of the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra for a declaration the Girh Kalayan
Kendra wherein the Workers are employed is 'State' within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay regular pay scales in
parity with other employees performing similar work under the Union of India
like New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of Delhi
Administration.
Grih Kalyan
Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Its
objectives as set out in the memorandum of Association are as follows:
"(a)
To promote social, economic, cultural and educational activities for the
betterment of the Central Government employees and their families;
(b) To
impart technical and vocational training in home crafts and other house-hold
arts for useful utilisation of leisure time; and
(c) To
organise and promote economic activities that may provide opportunities for
gainful employment to families Central Government employees for supplementing
family incomes."
18 For
attaining the aforesaid objectives, the Kendra has been conducting various
activities including; (i) holding of craft classes for training in cutting,
tailoring and embroidering for the house-wives and grown-up girls during their
leisure hours; (ii) imparting nursery education for children in the age group
of 3 to 7 years; (iii) running of creches or day-care centres for children
between the age of 90 days and 7 years; (iv) providing the recreational
facilities like T.V. shows, libraries,gymnasia and in-door games and sports at
the samaj sadans (Community Halls); (v) conducting stitching of liveries for
Class III (Group C) and Class IV (Group D) employees of Government Departments
and Public Sector Undertakings. The Kendra runs 29 nursery centres out of which
21 are in Delhi, 3 in Dehradun and one each at Faridabad, Nagpur, Jaipur, Bombay and Madras. It also runs 43 crafts centres out
of which 23 are in Delhi, 5 in Bombay, 8 in madras, 2 in Dehradun and one
each at Jaipur, Nagpur, Faridabad, Narela and Bahadurgarh. The Kendra also runs 19 centres
for day-care called creches out of which 16 are in Delhi and one each at Faridabad, Madras and Jaipur. The Kendra conducts two production centres, one
located at Delhi and the other at madras. In these centres
stitching of liveries for class III and Class IV employees of Government
Departments and Public Sector Undertakings are undertaken with a view to
provide gainful employment for dependent ladies members of the Government servants.
The Grih
Kalyan Kendra is a welfare organisation working under the aegis of the
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs.
The purpose and object of establishing the Kendras were to help needy
Government servants especially those belonging to the lower income group by
providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful work or training during
their leisure time. The scheme stipulated to ensure that the dependents of such
Government servants should be able to supplement to meagre income of the family
and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining employment elsewhere.
Initially, the employees of Kendra were paid honorarium only and at no time
they had any regular scales of pay. Some of the employees who work at the Centres
are paid on piece rate basis. The control and management of the Kendras vest in
a board which consist of officers of the Department of Personnel. The Union of
India supplements the income of the Kendras by providing grants and monetary
support. The employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra fall in two broad categories;
(i) regular staff taken on deputation from other Central Government offices who
draw their salaries in regular scale of pay alongwith the deputation and other
allowances as admissi- 19 ble to the Central Government employees; (ii)
employees employed at the various centres of the kendra on ad-hoc basis some of
whom have been working on fixed salary called honorarium while others are
working on the piece rate wages at the production centres without there being
any provision for any scale of pay and other benefits like, gratuity, pension,
provident fund etc. The terms and conditions of tenure of service have not been
regulated by any Rules framed by the Kendra. The services of the employees falling
in the second category are terminable at any time at the sweet will of the
officers of the Kendras.
The
petitioner has asserted that the employees of the Kendra are paid low wages and
their salaries are far less than what is paid to the employees doing similar
nature of work in the organisations like NDMC and other Departments of the
Delhi Administration. It is asserted that the Kendra is a 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore the respondents are
under constitutional obligation to prescribe similar scales of pay as
applicable to the employees of NDMC and Delhi Administration and who are doing
the same work as performed by the employees of the Kendra. The petitioner has
claimed relief for declaring the kendra to be an instrumentality of State and
for the issue of a direction directing the respondents to pay equal pay as paid
to the similar employees doing similar work in NDMC and other Departments of
Delhi Administration, along with other benefits like gratuity, pension and
provided fund. The petitioner's claim for equal pay as paid to the employees of
NDMC and Delhi Administration is contested by the respondents. In the
counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,it is asserted that the Grih
Kalyan Kendra was started as a welfare society with the aim of helping the
needy Government servants especially those belonging to lower income group by
providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful work, so that, they might
be able to supplement the meagre income of their family and at the same time
they may also gain skill and experience in order to improve their career
elsewhere. Grih Kalyan Kendra was expected to be a stepping stone for such
dependents of the poor Government servants and there was no intention to
provide them with any regular employment. it is further stated that in the
nature of things and in consonance with original aim the employees of the Grih Kalyan
Kendra were expected to leave the organisation once they have acquired skill
and experience and seek other opportunity of employment for the betterment of
their career elsewhere. The employees of the Kendra were expected to leave the organisation
once they lost the status of dependent of low paid- 20 Government employees.
However, the employees of the Kendra have not met any of these expectations.
Some of the employees once inducted into the organisation have continued for a
number of years. The employees working in the Kendra are not regular employees
and the duties performed by them are not comparable to any of the employees
working under NDMC or any Department of Delhi Administration or under the Union
of India. The status of the kendra is a unique one where the work and duties
performed by its employees are quite different in nature than those performed
by the employees of NDMC and Delhi Administration.
Shri Govind
Mukhoty learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Grih Kalyan
Kendras are managed by the Board as contemplated by the Rules of the Registered
Societies, the Union of India have the pervasive control over its functions, it
is an instrumentality and agency of the Union Government and therefore it is a
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He placed reliance
on decisions of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3 SCC 489; P. K. Ramachandra Lyer &
Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 141; B.S. Minhas v. Indian
Statistical Institute & Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 582; Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad
v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 644 and Surya Narain Yadav &
Ors. v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 38. WE do not
think it necessary to consider this question in detail as in our opinion given
on an assumption that the Grih Kalyan Kendra is an instrumentality of a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the petitioners are
entitled to enforce their fundamental rights against it, it is difficult to
uphold this contention that the respondents have violated any of the
fundamental rights of the petitioners. We accordingly proceed on the assumption
that the Grih Kalyan kendra is a State for the purposes of Chapter IV of the
Constitution and consequently this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court for the enforcement of their fundamental right
founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Equal
pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a
fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as
contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution "Equal pay for equal
work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence
having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal- 21 work and providing security for
service by regularising causal employment within a reasonable period has been
accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern. It
has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional
philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing
equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees
of the State. This Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right to equal
pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and
social justice in a number of decisions. See: Randhir Singh v. Union of Ind,
[1982] 1 SCC 618; Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department
v. Union of India, [1988] 1 SCC 122; Dhirendra Chamoli V. State of U.P., [1986]
1 SCC 637; Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD, [1986] 1 SCC 639; R.D.
Gupta v. Lt. Governor Delhi Administration, [1987] 4 SCC 505 Bhagwan Dass v.
State of Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of Haryana, [1988] 3 SCC
354 and Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association &
Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 396. Therefore, the principle
of equal pay for equal work even in an establishment which is an
instrumentality of a State is applicable to its full vigour.
The
question then arises whether the respondents have practised discrimination in
denying the employees of the kendra pay which the Union of India has been
paying to other similarly placed employees doing the same or similar work.
This
question is of primary importance which requires investigation of facts.
Unless, it is demonstrated that the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra are
discriminated in matters relating to pay and other emoluments with the other
similarly placed employees, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be
applied. While considering this question, it is not necessary to find out
similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable similarity in
the nature of work, performance of duties, the qualification and the quality of
work performed by them.
It is
permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay
scale, value of work and responsibility and experience. The classification
must, however, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of
India, [1988] 3 SCC 91.
Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J. (as he then was) observed:
"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- 22 often the difference is a matter of degree and that 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.
So
long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonable or an intelligible criteria
which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise
that equal pay for equal work if a concomitant of Article 14 of the
Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be
a negation of that right." Elaborating the aforesaid observation the
learned Judge further observed thus:
"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. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated
into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be
sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the
administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be
left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is
demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala
fide either in law or in fact." The petitioners have referred to the scale
of pay paid to the similar employees of NDMC and Delhi Development Authority
under the Delhi Administration for the various employees to demonstrate that
the employees of the Kendra are being discriminated as they are paid lower
amount of salary although they perform the same duties and functions as
performed by corresponding employees holding corresponding posts under the NDMC
and Delhi Administration.
The
chart as set out in the petition is as under:
S. No.
Designation GKK Salaries per month NDMC DDA/C.Govt.
____________________________________________________________________
1. Incharge
Creche 788 1139 1380
2. Creche
Attendants 758 1139 1139
3. Creche
Ayahs 592 792 792
4.
Craft Teachers 786 1260 1444
5.
Nursery Teachers 712 1260 1260
6.
Nursery Ayahs 430 792 792
7.
Office Incharge of Crech Centre etc. - 1140 -
8.
Office Asstt./Typist 880 1140 -
9. i)
Cutters (Tailors) - 1140 - ii) Stitchers (Checker)870 1140 - iii) Drivers 565
1140 - iv) Peons - 1140 - v) Chowkidars 750 792 -
10.
Sweepers 225 - - In 1984 the employees filed Writ Petition No. 13924 of 1984 in
this Court claiming relief for the payment of wages on the principle of equal
pay for equal work, seeking parity with the employees of NDMC and other
Departments of Delhi Administration and Union of India. Since, the matter
involved investigations of facts, this Court with a view to find out as to
which other employees similarly situated were paid more than the employees
working in the Kendra and also to ascertain whether the principle of equal pay
for equal work was being violated by the kendra, on the suggestion of the
parties referred the matter to Former Chief Justice Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, for
his report and recommendation. The Court requested the Former Chief Justice make
recommendations taking into account the following matters:
"1.
Whether other similarly situated employees (engaged in similar comparable work,
putting in comparable hours of work, in a comparable employment) are paid
higher pay and if so what should be the entitlement of the complaining
employees in order not to violate the equal pay for equal work principle;
2. If
there is no other comparable employment, whether the remuneration of the complaining
employees deserves- 24 to be revised on the ground that their remuneration is
unconscionable or unfair and if so to what extent.
3. The
organisation is not disabled form continuing its benign motivity and even
extending it." Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the parties
including the petitioners appeared before the Former Chief Justice. After
hearing the parties and considering the entire material placed before him, the
Former Chief Justice submitted and elaborate report to the Court making
comprehensive suggestions. The respondents to the writ petition agreed to
implement the recommendations made by the Former Chief Justice. Thereupon the
writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 6 th May 1988 stating that the
employees of the Kendra are entitled to the benefits recommended in the Report
of the Former Chief Justice. In order to appreciate the controversy, we
consider it necessary to refer to the concluding part of the Report which
contains the recommendations, it is as follows:
"Having
given a careful thought to these unusual considerations, I am of the opinion
that until such time as the Government formulates a new scheme for giving an
orderly shape to the Kendra so that, by the application of a rational policy
the remuneration of the Kendra employees could be fixed on a fair basis, an
ad-hoc method of stepping up their meagre honorarium should be adopted, linked
to the length of service put in by the employees.
No
other test seems feasible since, especially, the Kendra employees are not
prohibited from taking any other employment, they are not recruited through an
open competition, there is no age bar for their recruitment or retirement and
since, being dependents of Government servants, they are eligible in that
capacity for receiving other benefits like free medical aid and leave travel
concessions. In view of these circumstances, to place the Kendra employees on
par with other employees would be treating unequals as equals which would
conceivably draw a constitutional challenge.
For
the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the employees of the Kendra belonging
to category (b) described earlier in this Report should be paid a fixed monthly
honorarium according to the following scale:
25
1.
Employees who have put in a service of 20 years of more should be paid 100%
(one hundred per cent ) more of the honorarium which is paid to them at
present.
2.
Employees who have put in a service of 15 to 20 years should be paid 90%
(ninety per cent) more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present.
3.
Employees who have put in a service of 10 to 15 years should be paid 80%
(eighty per cent) more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present.
4.
Employees who have put in a service of 5 to 10 years should be paid 70%
(seventy per cent) more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present.
5.
Employees who have put in a service of 1 to 5 years should be paid 60% (sixty
per cent) more of the honoratium which is paid to them at present.
These
recommendation should operate retrospectively with effect from 1st August 1986,
being the date on which the Supreme Court passed its order referring the matter
to me. The delay in making these recommendations is not due to any default on
the part of the employees. The employees of the Kendra of the (b) category
should be paid arrears of honorarium upon the revised basis, before 31st
October, 1987." The Court accepted the Report of the Former Chief Justice
and disposed of the petition on a statement made on behalf of the respondents
that they would implement the recommendations made in the Report of the Former
Chief Justice. There is no dispute that the recommendations made by the Former
Chief Justice have been implemented and the employees of the Kendra are being
paid remuneration accordingly. The Former Chief Justice's recommendation for
ad-hoc method of stepping up of honorarium until such time as the Government
formulates a new scheme for giving orderly shape of the Kendra has been
accepted by the respondents and a Sub-Committee has been set up by the Grih Kalyan
Kendra Board to review the organisational and operational arrangements in the
Kendra at the headquarters and in the cities and to suggest measures for the
improvement of its functioning. The Committee has been directed- 26 with
reference to the original objectives of Kendra of imparting skills to a steady
stream of dependents of Government employees and to make suggestions for making
further improvements. The Committee has not yet submitted its report. We hope
and trust that the Committee will submit its report and the Girh Kalyan Kendra
will take steps to improve the functioning of the Kendras including the
remuneration of its employees.
In the
instant writ petition the petitioners have raised precisely the same question
as raised in the earlier Writ Petition 13924 of 1984. Their grievance of
discrimination in matters relating to payment of scale of pay and other
emoluments was examined in the earlier writ petition and the Former Chief
Justice held that there was no employment comparable to the employment held
under the Grih Kalyan Kendra and therefore they could not seek parity with
other employees working under NDMC or the Delhi Administration or Union of
India. We consider it necessary to refer to the relevant part of the Report of
the Former Chief Justice, which is as under:
"The
first consideration which I am required by the Supreme Court to take into
account is "whether other similarly situated employees (engaged in similar
comparable work, putting in comparable hours of work, in a comparable
employment) are paid a higher pay and as to what should be the entitlement of
the complaining employees in order not to violate the equal pay for equal work
principle." The facts and the statistical data set out above will show
that the employment in the Kendra is unique in character, that is to say, it is
not comparable with any other employment. Its motivation and genesis coupled
with the absence of rules governing service conditions elude even a broad
comparison between the employees of the Kendra and the employees of other organisations
holding somewhat similar post, that is, posts bearing similar duties and
designation. It is difficult to conceive of any other service which one can
enter at any age, regardless of educational qualifications, and from which one
can retire when one chooses. It is something like "come if you like, go
when you please". Since there is no other employment which can bear a
reasonable comparison with employment in the service of the Kendra, it is
difficult to perceive employees similarly situated as those in the service of
the Kendra.
27
Therefore, the fact that those other employees may be drawing higher pay will
not justify the conclusion that the employees of the Kendra of Category(b),
with whom alone we are concerned are denied the benefit of the principle
"Equal pay for equal work". It is trite that the concept of equality
implies and requires equal treatment for those who are situated equally. One
cannot draw comparisons between unequals. If the facts of a given case fail to
establish that persons who are aggrieved are not situated equally with others,
the benefits available to those others cannot ipso facto be given to the former
though, of course, the question as to whether persons are situated equally has
to be determined by the application of broad and reasonable tests and not by
the application of a mathematical formula of exactitude. Try howsoever as one
may be applying broad and reasonable criteria, the conclusion is inescapable
that there are no other employment comparable to the employment in the (b)
category of the Kendra, that means that the aggrieved employees are not
situated similarly as any others.
This
then in my answer to the first question referred by the Supreme Court for my
consideration.
Putting
it briefly, there being no other Government or semi-Government employees who
can be regarded, even broadly, as being situated similarly as the employees of
the Kendra with whom we are concerned, the principle of equal pay for equal
work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of mere honorarium to these
employees." The above findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice are
findings of facts founded on the material placed before him by the parties.
These findings were accepted by this Court and the Writ petition was
accordingly disposed of by an order dated 6th May 1988. Now it is not open to
the petitioner to reopen the same question by means of the present writ
petition. In the Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner an
attempt was made to dispute the findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice
but in fairness, Shri Govind Mukhoty made a candid statement before us during
the course of the arguments that the findings of the Former Chief Justice are
not disputed. The findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice clearly show
that there has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not being
discriminated from those who are situated equally. The petitioners' claim 28
for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, therefore must fail.
Since
the petitioner's claim for parity in pay with regard to the employees working
in the New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi
Administration and Union of India has failed, their claim for the issue of
direction to the respondents to provide for the pension, gratuity and provident
fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra must also fail.
In the
result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs.
Y.Lal
Petition dismissed.
Back
