Satish Kumar Vs. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 807 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 691 of 1995)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 691 of 1995)
Petitioner: Satish Kumar
Respondent: The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 807 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 691 of 1995)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 691 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 29, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. Puneet Bali and Mr. M.T. George, Advocates for the Petition-er.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Equal pay for equal work – Petitioner appointed without having basic minimum qualification for pump operator – Held exercise of power by Chairman under Section 18 of Improvement Trust Act illegal – Equal pay for equal work doctrine as per Article 39(a) Constitution applies only when person discharges same duties but not being paid same pay – Petitioner, not possessed of basic minimum qualification is not entitled – Appeal dis-missed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Though the learned counsel has tried his best to persuade us to disagree with the impugned order of the High Court, we think that the High Court is right in its conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the equal pay as Pumpset Operator. The learned counsel sought to rely upon section 18 of the Punjab Town Im-provement Trust Act, 1923 (for short the Act). Section 18 envis-ages power of the Trust to fix number of employees, their sala-ries etc. Section 17 envisages constitution of the trust and subject to the constitution section 18 says that the Trust may from time to time employ such other servants on such terms and conditions as it may deem, necessary and proper for carrying out its controlling power of appointment, promotion, granting leave, suspension of the servants, reducing them into their hierarchy of position removing them from service, dismissing them from service for misconduct for reasons other than misconduct Chairman also has power under the Act.
2. It is stated that in exercising this power, the Chairman being the controlling authority had relaxed the service conditions of the petitioner and also appointed him as Pumpset Operator though he was not possessed of the minimum qualification prescribed under the Act. It is not in dispute that for the said post Ma-triculation with I.T.I. are qualifications which the petitioner admittedly has not possessed of. General power of supervision and control does not include the power to appoint any person of his choice without basic qualification. Therefore, the exercise of the power by the Chairman would obviously be illegal. Under those circumstances, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work envisaged in Article 39 (a) of the Constitution has no application. It would apply only when a person is discharging the same duties but not being paid the same pay for the same work. In this case since the petitioner is not possessed of minimum basic qualification to the post to which he was appointed, unequals cannot be made equals for paying equal pay for equal work. Therefore, he is not entitled to equal pay.
3. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Though the learned counsel has tried his best to persuade us to disagree with the impugned order of the High Court, we think that the High Court is right in its conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the equal pay as Pumpset Operator. The learned counsel sought to rely upon section 18 of the Punjab Town Im-provement Trust Act, 1923 (for short the Act). Section 18 envis-ages power of the Trust to fix number of employees, their sala-ries etc. Section 17 envisages constitution of the trust and subject to the constitution section 18 says that the Trust may from time to time employ such other servants on such terms and conditions as it may deem, necessary and proper for carrying out its controlling power of appointment, promotion, granting leave, suspension of the servants, reducing them into their hierarchy of position removing them from service, dismissing them from service for misconduct for reasons other than misconduct Chairman also has power under the Act.
2. It is stated that in exercising this power, the Chairman being the controlling authority had relaxed the service conditions of the petitioner and also appointed him as Pumpset Operator though he was not possessed of the minimum qualification prescribed under the Act. It is not in dispute that for the said post Ma-triculation with I.T.I. are qualifications which the petitioner admittedly has not possessed of. General power of supervision and control does not include the power to appoint any person of his choice without basic qualification. Therefore, the exercise of the power by the Chairman would obviously be illegal. Under those circumstances, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work envisaged in Article 39 (a) of the Constitution has no application. It would apply only when a person is discharging the same duties but not being paid the same pay for the same work. In this case since the petitioner is not possessed of minimum basic qualification to the post to which he was appointed, unequals cannot be made equals for paying equal pay for equal work. Therefore, he is not entitled to equal pay.
3. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
