Garhwal
Jal Sansthan Karmachari Union & ANR Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1997] INSC
356 (27 March 1997)
K.S.
PARIPOORNAN, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
S.P.
KURDUKAR, J.
This
Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the appellants challenging the
correctness of the judgment dated April 18, 1995 rendered by the Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court. The first respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh. The second respond respondent is Garhwal
Jal Sansthan, Dehradun.
2. By
way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , The
appellants challenged the legality and correctness of the communication/order
dated 5th march, 1984 passed by the State Government. A further relief was
sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondents not
implement the order dated 5th March, 1984
and instead to implement the resolution dated 4th June, 1983 passed by the second respondent.
3. The
claim set out by the appellants in their writ petition was that they are
entitled for the same pay scales which are given to the employees of Jal Nigam.
In short, the appellants claim is based on the principle of equal pay for equal
work and it arises under the following circumstances.
4. The
State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1975 enacted the U.P Water Supply and
Sewerage Act, 1975(for short `the Act'). Prior to the passing of this Act, it
appears that there were two departments (1) Local self Engineering Department
which was entrusted including proper water supply and sewer age service and (2)
after installation of such projects, they used to be handed over to the Nagar Palikas
and Municipal Boards for maintenance by their respective employees. From the
record it further appears that the services and the pay scales in these two
departments were not identical and the former was directly under the control of
government whereas the latter was under the control of local bodies such as Maha
palikas or Municipal Boards.
5. The
Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Act created two separate and distinct
Corporations. U.P Jal Nigam has been constituted under section 3 of the Act
being a body corporate having jurisdiction all over the territory of uttar
Pradesh. Jal Sansthans have been established under section 18 having
jurisdiction over the local area or any part thereof , of one or more local
bodies as the State Government may specify in the notification. Jal Sansthan is
again a body corporate and is deemed to be the local authority. Under section
31 of the Act with effect from June 18, 1975,
all properties, assets, liabilities and obligations of U.P. Local self
Government Engineering Department stood vested under Jal Nigam and Consequently
the employees of this department stood allocated and transferred to the Uttar
Pradesh Jal Nigam. From the scheme of the Act , it appears that Jal Nigam
(corporation) is vested with the jurisdiction all over the State and is fully
controlled by the State Government. As against this, Jal Sansthans which are
established under Section 18 of the Act exercised their jurisdiction in respect
of the local area or any part thereof, of one or more local bodies as specified
by the state Government by notification. It is, therefore, quite apparent that Jal
Nigam has got a wider jurisdiction than Jal Sansthan, although some of the
duties and obligations are similar. The nature of work discharged by Jal Nigam
and Jal Sansthan is also to some extent similar but having regard to the scheme
of the Act, it cannot be said that both of the discharged the same duties and
functions. The distinction between them is again noticed from the provisions
contained in Section 16 of the Act Wherein Jal Nigam is empowered to call for
such reports and information from Jal Sansthan or local body whenever it may be
considered necessary and after considering the reports and information may
issue such directions to Jal Sansthan or local Body as may be found necessary.
Section 17 of the Act in fact confers supervisory powers on Jal Nigam. The
duties and the work assigned to Jal Nigam and jal sansthan, inter alia, provide
for formulation of the projects and schemes relating to the water supply and
sewerage. The functions of Jal Nigam have been specifically set out in Section
14 of the Act whereas functions of Jal Sansthan have been enumerated in Section
24. After going through the various provisions of the Act, it appears to us
that Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan area two distinct body corporates although some
of the functions are overlapping and of similar nature. It is the claim of the
appellants that the duties , obligations and the work discharged by the
employees of both these Corporations being identical, they are entitled for
parity in pay scales on the principle of equal work. The appellants sought to
justify their claim on the basis of the resolution dated 4th June, 1983 passed by Jal Sansthan, Dehradun
approving the pay parity with the employees of Jal Nigam .
The
resolution dated 4th June, 1983 was sent to the State Government for its
approval, however, the State Government vide its communication dated 5th March,
1984 did not accord permission to implement the said resolution and as a result
thereof, they were required to file the aforesaid writ petition in the High
Court for the aforesaid reliefs.
6. The
high Court after considering the pleadings and materials on record held that
the employees of jal sansthhan cannot be equated in the matter of pay scales
with the employees of Jal Nigam. The High court , inter alia noticed the
following of differences between the tow corporations;
(1) Jal
Sansthan was constituted under section 18 of the Act and it is a local authority
. The Nature of work of the employees is the same as that of local bodies, (2) Jal
Sansthans are under the purview of pay commission for the local bodies, (3)
there is a basic difference in the Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan and (4) Jal Nigam
is a separate corporation and the employees are under the purview of separate
commission. Consistent with these findings, the High Court declined to grant
any relief to the appellants (writ petitioners).
7. Mr.
G.L Sanghi, Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of this appeal urged
that both these Corporations have been created under the Act and the nature of
work discharged by the employees being similar, there is no justification to
deny the parity in the pay scales of the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan
. He draw our attention to Annexures II,III,IV and `A' and contended that the Garhwal
Jal Sansthan had been creating posts from time to time by passing resolutions
and extended the benefit of leave encashment, reimbursement of medical expenses
etc. to its employees in the same manner as were made applicable to the
employees of the Jal Nigam. In this Context, counsel drew our attention to the
resolution dated 4th
June, 1983 passed by
the Jal Sansthan recommending and seeking sanction from the State Government,
to bring parity in respect of the pay scales of the employees of jal Sansthan
with Jal Nigam.
Counsel
therefore, urged that the High Court was totally wrong in denying the reliefs
to the appellants.
8. As
indicated earlier, some of the duties and functions discharged bu; the
employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan are similar but the question is whether
that by itself is a decisive factor to hold that the employees of the first
appellant union are entitled for the parity of pay scales with the employees of
Jal Nigam. Can the principle of equal pay for equal work be applied to the two
sets of employees in different organisations who area discharging the duties
and functions to some extent similar without reference to the qualitative
commonality thereof? From the scheme of the Act, the duties and functions
assigned to the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan, are in many respects
qualitatively different. Jal Nigam is a corporation fully controlled by the state
and extending the jurisdiction all over the territory of Uttar
Pradesh whereas the
duties and functions of Jal Sansthans are restricted to local area and under
the control of local bodies. From the material produced before us, we are
constrained to say that there is qualitative difference in the duties and
functions discharged by the employees of Jal Nigam an Jal Sansthan and, therefore
, the claim of equal pay for equal work on the plea of discrimination under
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution is without any foundation. The
principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable where qualitative
difference in functions and responsibilities is apparent. This Court in State
of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Pramod Bhartiya and
others, 1993(1) SCC 539 had an occasion to consider the application of this principle
.
After
careful consideration of various decisions on this subject, this Court held as
under:- "It would be evident from this definition that the stress is upon
the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar
conditions. Further as pointed out by Mukharji, J. (as he then was) in
Federation of All India Customs and 1983(3) SCC 91, the quality of work may
vary institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality, It
is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. The respondents (original
petitioners) have failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and
functions are similar to those of the non-technical lecturers in Technical Colleges.
They have also failed to establish that distinction between their scales of pay
and that of non-technical lecturers working in Technical Schools is either
irrational and that it has no basis, or that it is vitiated by mala fides,
either in law or in fact(see the approach adopted in Federation case ). It must
be remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be
examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to
establish their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case
may be.
This
burden, the original petitioners (respondents herein) have failed to
discharge." others, 1977(1) Supreme 137, this Court observed that
principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are
inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different
persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. This
Court observed as follows:- "It is, therefore, clear that the quality of
work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to
be evaluated. There may be differences in educational or technical
qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring
to their job although the designation of the fob may be the same. There may
also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service
which may justify differences in pay-scales on the basis of criteria such as
experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that
good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the
pay- consideration which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job.
This Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purpose
of pay-scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala
fides, its evaluation should be accepted." In view of the settled position
of law, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not brought on
record any material which justify their claim based on the principle of equal
work.
9. Mr.
Sanghi, Learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the decision
of this Court in Babu Lal, 1994 suppl. (2) SCC 633. The dispute in this case
was in respect of the pay scales of SWD Beldars and SWD Mates Vis- a-Vis the
work of Sewermen/Sewermates and SWD Lorry Beldars- class IV employees working
under the New Delhi Municipal Committee. On the basis of the pleadings and
record of the said case, this Court found that the work of SWD Beldars and SWD
Mates is almost similar to the work of SWD Sewermen/Sewermates and SWD Lorry Beldars.
This decision, in our opinion, is based upon the facts of that case and,
therefore, it is distinguishable. Mr. Sanghi then drew our attention to another
decision of this Court in Kshatrapal (3) SCC 206. This decision again proceeds
on the footing that there is commonality of work among the employees in each
department of New Delhi Municipal Committee and if this be so, granting benefit
of Shiv Shanker Committee to certain categories although, there is commonality
of work is discriminatory. This decision is again distinguishable on facts.
10. It
was contended on behalf of the appellants that the second respondent vide its
resolution dated 4th June, 1983 resolved to pay the same pay-scales as are paid
to the employees of Jal Nigam, to its employees after considering financial
implication thereof. The second respondent has only sought the approval of the
State Government to its resolution dated 4th June, 1983 passed by the second respondent. This
submission need not detain us any longer because the State Government exercises
a supervisory power and if the State Government finds that the appellants's
claim based on principle of equal pay for equal work is unsustainable, it
cannot be said that the government decision is either arbitrary or suffers from
any vice.
11. In
view of our above conclusions, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the
High Court suffers from no infirmity. The appeal to stand dismissed. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
