Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition No. 13524 of 1984
Petitioner: Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition No. 13524 of 1984
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT,JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 06, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Equal pay for equal work
Recommendations of Mr.Justice Chandrachud, to whom the matter was referred, to be implemented – Held that the employees were entitled to the benefits recommended in the report.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:
Articles 12 and 32 – Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860 – Petitioners were employees of the Society which was a Govt. concern – Whether the people who work under the Society should be entitled to the same scale of salary as admissible to Govt. servants? – Society not made a party in the writ petition and in no part of the writ petition the assertion was made – Held that the claim advanced by the petitioner was not available for examination – The question was left open.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The petitioner is the union of a group of workers under a society by name Grih Kalyan Kendra registered under the Societies Registration Act 21, of 1860. As the allegations in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution indicate the society is a Government concern and seems to be also Government managed. The main objective of the society is to provide employment opportunities to pensioners’ families of deceased Government servants, their dependents and to promote the welfare of the Central Government employees. After the writ petition was filed in this Court, by an order made on August 1, 1986, a reference was made to Mr. Justice Chandrachud, a former Chief Justice of this Court, by indicating:-
“Heard both the sides.
In this petition by Grah Kalyan Kendra Workers Union the main grievance is that the principle of equal pay for equal work is violated and the employees are being paid less. Payment at a flat rate is being made to them and it is characterised as honorarium. It is obvious that salary called by any other name remains salary and would have to stand the test of equal pay for equal work. The matter however involves investigation of facts with a view to find out which other employees who are similarly situated are being paid more than the complaining employees and whether the principle of equal pay for equal work is being violated in this context. This Court cannot undertake this exercise without investing a great deal of time which the court can ill-afford. Under the circumstances, a suggestion was made to both the sides that the matter may be referred to a retired Judge of the Supreme Court who may be requested to hear the parties on the basis of the affidavits and other material produced before him and make suitable recommendations. Both the sides have accepted this suggestion. We, therefore, request Shri Y.V.Chandrachud, former Chief Justices of India, to be good enough to undertake this assignment.
I. Shri Chandrachud will afford the parties reasonable opportunity to place before him material in the shape of documents and affidavits and after hearing the parties will make appropriate recommendations.
II. In making the recommendations Shri Chandrachud will no doubt take into account:
1. 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 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 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 from continuing its being activity and even extending it.
III. Parties will appear before Shri Chandrachud on 16th August, 1986 at 10.00 A.M. at his residence for directions as regards the time table and procedure to be adopted.
IV. Shri Chandrachud will fix a reasonable sum as remuneration for this assignment in consultation with the learned counsel for the Union of India the burden of which will be borne entirely by the Union of India.
V. Shri Chandrachud will be good enough to make his recommendations within three months from the date of the first meeting.
The Writ Petition is adjourned and will be listed two weeks after the receipt of the recommendations.”
2. Mr. Justice Chandrachud has gone into the matter at considerable length and has made comprehensive suggestions. A civil miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners and the respondents have agreed to pay the amounts recommended in the report. We may point out here that the registered Society is not a party to the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Society which, as we have already pointed out, is not before us is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the people who work under the Society should be entitled to be paid at the same scale of salary as admissible to government servants in the various grades. In no part of the writ petition has this assertion been made. Therefore, counsel is not entitled to raise an argument that there is no denial of the fact that the Society is’State’. When this was pointed out, learned counsel fairly conceded that what we have stated above is a fact. We, therefore, cannot in this case hold that the Society is State and, therefore, the claim advanced by the petitioner-Union is available for examination. That question is left open.
4. Since the respondents have already agreed to implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice Chandrachud, we dispose of this writ petition by saying that the employees are entitled to the benefits recommended in the report. There would be no order for costs.
1. The petitioner is the union of a group of workers under a society by name Grih Kalyan Kendra registered under the Societies Registration Act 21, of 1860. As the allegations in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution indicate the society is a Government concern and seems to be also Government managed. The main objective of the society is to provide employment opportunities to pensioners’ families of deceased Government servants, their dependents and to promote the welfare of the Central Government employees. After the writ petition was filed in this Court, by an order made on August 1, 1986, a reference was made to Mr. Justice Chandrachud, a former Chief Justice of this Court, by indicating:-
“Heard both the sides.
In this petition by Grah Kalyan Kendra Workers Union the main grievance is that the principle of equal pay for equal work is violated and the employees are being paid less. Payment at a flat rate is being made to them and it is characterised as honorarium. It is obvious that salary called by any other name remains salary and would have to stand the test of equal pay for equal work. The matter however involves investigation of facts with a view to find out which other employees who are similarly situated are being paid more than the complaining employees and whether the principle of equal pay for equal work is being violated in this context. This Court cannot undertake this exercise without investing a great deal of time which the court can ill-afford. Under the circumstances, a suggestion was made to both the sides that the matter may be referred to a retired Judge of the Supreme Court who may be requested to hear the parties on the basis of the affidavits and other material produced before him and make suitable recommendations. Both the sides have accepted this suggestion. We, therefore, request Shri Y.V.Chandrachud, former Chief Justices of India, to be good enough to undertake this assignment.
I. Shri Chandrachud will afford the parties reasonable opportunity to place before him material in the shape of documents and affidavits and after hearing the parties will make appropriate recommendations.
II. In making the recommendations Shri Chandrachud will no doubt take into account:
1. 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 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 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 from continuing its being activity and even extending it.
III. Parties will appear before Shri Chandrachud on 16th August, 1986 at 10.00 A.M. at his residence for directions as regards the time table and procedure to be adopted.
IV. Shri Chandrachud will fix a reasonable sum as remuneration for this assignment in consultation with the learned counsel for the Union of India the burden of which will be borne entirely by the Union of India.
V. Shri Chandrachud will be good enough to make his recommendations within three months from the date of the first meeting.
The Writ Petition is adjourned and will be listed two weeks after the receipt of the recommendations.”
2. Mr. Justice Chandrachud has gone into the matter at considerable length and has made comprehensive suggestions. A civil miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners and the respondents have agreed to pay the amounts recommended in the report. We may point out here that the registered Society is not a party to the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Society which, as we have already pointed out, is not before us is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the people who work under the Society should be entitled to be paid at the same scale of salary as admissible to government servants in the various grades. In no part of the writ petition has this assertion been made. Therefore, counsel is not entitled to raise an argument that there is no denial of the fact that the Society is’State’. When this was pointed out, learned counsel fairly conceded that what we have stated above is a fact. We, therefore, cannot in this case hold that the Society is State and, therefore, the claim advanced by the petitioner-Union is available for examination. That question is left open.
4. Since the respondents have already agreed to implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice Chandrachud, we dispose of this writ petition by saying that the employees are entitled to the benefits recommended in the report. There would be no order for costs.
