Supreme Court Ruling on Equal Pay for Temporary Employees
The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, has held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post.
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S.A. Bobde ruled that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies to all concerned temporary employees, granting them the right to claim wages at par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post. This decision came as the Bench heard an appeal against a High Court order which had ruled that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, as was being paid to similarly placed regular employees.
India is a signatory to the relevant covenant, having ratified it on April 10, 1979. There is no escape from this obligation, given the different provisions of the Constitution and the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" constitutes a clear and unambiguous right vested in every employee, whether engaged on a regular or temporary basis.
Principles Summarized by the Court
* The "onus of proof" of parity in duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," lies with the claimant. The claimant must establish that the subject post requires them to discharge work of equal value as the reference post.
* The mere fact that the subject post is in a "different department" compared to the reference post does not affect the determination of a claim under the principle of "equal pay for equal work." Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in terms of pay merely because they belong to different government departments.
* The principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies to cases of unequal pay scales based on no classification or irrational classification.
* For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought should be performing work that is functionally equal and of the same quality and sensitivity.
* Persons holding the same rank/designation in different departments but having dissimilar powers, duties, and responsibilities can be placed in different pay scales 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.
* In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," it is necessary to consider that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with differences in responsibility, reliability, and confidentiality falls within the realm of valid classification, making pay differentiation legitimate. 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, as should the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work."
* For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant must be a regular appointee selected through a regular recruitment process. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim placement in the regular pay scale.
* Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties, and responsibilities can also be placed in different pay scales, such as "selection grade" in the same post. However, this difference must emerge from a legitimate foundation, such as merit, seniority, or other relevant criteria.
* If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-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.
* The reference post, with which parity is claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," must be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post. Pay scales of posts may differ if the hierarchy of the posts in question and their channels of promotion are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are the same, parity would not be permissible against a superior post, such as a promotional post.
* 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 with different management. Even if the establishments are in different geographical locations but owned by the same master, persons engaged differently and paid from different funds would not be entitled to pay parity.
* Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. For instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous or exposed to a higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply. Also, when the reference post includes the responsibility to make crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post.
* The priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply.
* Parity in pay under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point in 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.
* For parity in pay scales under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," the equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not apply. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not apply. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not apply.
* 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.
* The principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation or due to a lack of promotional avenues.
* 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. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations are with different entities, independent of one another, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply.
Source:
‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ For Temporary Employees As Well: SC [Read Judgment] | Live Law
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
1446The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, has held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post.
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S.A. Bobde ruled that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies to all concerned temporary employees, granting them the right to claim wages at par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post. This decision came as the Bench heard an appeal against a High Court order which had ruled that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, as was being paid to similarly placed regular employees.
India is a signatory to the relevant covenant, having ratified it on April 10, 1979. There is no escape from this obligation, given the different provisions of the Constitution and the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" constitutes a clear and unambiguous right vested in every employee, whether engaged on a regular or temporary basis.
Principles Summarized by the Court
* The "onus of proof" of parity in duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," lies with the claimant. The claimant must establish that the subject post requires them to discharge work of equal value as the reference post.
* The mere fact that the subject post is in a "different department" compared to the reference post does not affect the determination of a claim under the principle of "equal pay for equal work." Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in terms of pay merely because they belong to different government departments.
* The principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies to cases of unequal pay scales based on no classification or irrational classification.
* For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought should be performing work that is functionally equal and of the same quality and sensitivity.
* Persons holding the same rank/designation in different departments but having dissimilar powers, duties, and responsibilities can be placed in different pay scales 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.
* In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," it is necessary to consider that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with differences in responsibility, reliability, and confidentiality falls within the realm of valid classification, making pay differentiation legitimate. 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, as should the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work."
* For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant must be a regular appointee selected through a regular recruitment process. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim placement in the regular pay scale.
* Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties, and responsibilities can also be placed in different pay scales, such as "selection grade" in the same post. However, this difference must emerge from a legitimate foundation, such as merit, seniority, or other relevant criteria.
* If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-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.
* The reference post, with which parity is claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," must be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post. Pay scales of posts may differ if the hierarchy of the posts in question and their channels of promotion are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are the same, parity would not be permissible against a superior post, such as a promotional post.
* 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 with different management. Even if the establishments are in different geographical locations but owned by the same master, persons engaged differently and paid from different funds would not be entitled to pay parity.
* Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. For instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous or exposed to a higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply. Also, when the reference post includes the responsibility to make crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post.
* The priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply.
* Parity in pay under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point in 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.
* For parity in pay scales under the principle of "equal pay for equal work," the equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not apply. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not apply. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not apply.
* 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.
* The principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation or due to a lack of promotional avenues.
* 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. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations are with different entities, independent of one another, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply.
Source:
‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ For Temporary Employees As Well: SC [Read Judgment] | Live Law
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
It appears you are seeking information about the implications of the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, specifically as it relates to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' for temporary employees.
Here's what you need to know:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. This is based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' ✅
2. The claimant who approaches the court for parity in pay must provide proof that he or she is discharging equal work of equal value as the reference post 📝
3. The principle applies even if the claimant's post is in a different department but discharges identical duties. However, if the duties, responsibilities, or the level of sensitivity and confidentiality of the tasks differ, then the principle may not apply ❌
4. For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant must be a regular appointee and should have been selected through a regular recruitment process. Temporary employees cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale ❌
5. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply if the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post and the reference post are different, or if the posts are in different establishments or geographical locations. It also doesn't apply if the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay-scale at an earlier time 🚫
6. If the nature of duties of the posts are significantly different, for instance, one is teaching and the other is non-teaching, the principle would not apply ❌
7. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not apply where a higher pay-scale is given to persons discharging the same duties to counter stagnation or lack of promotional avenues, or between employees of different organizations even with a common employer ❌
This ruling has significant implications for temporary employees and employers alike. It's important to consult with an HR professional or legal counsel to understand how this may specifically impact your situation.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here's what you need to know:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. This is based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' ✅
2. The claimant who approaches the court for parity in pay must provide proof that he or she is discharging equal work of equal value as the reference post 📝
3. The principle applies even if the claimant's post is in a different department but discharges identical duties. However, if the duties, responsibilities, or the level of sensitivity and confidentiality of the tasks differ, then the principle may not apply ❌
4. For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant must be a regular appointee and should have been selected through a regular recruitment process. Temporary employees cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale ❌
5. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply if the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post and the reference post are different, or if the posts are in different establishments or geographical locations. It also doesn't apply if the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay-scale at an earlier time 🚫
6. If the nature of duties of the posts are significantly different, for instance, one is teaching and the other is non-teaching, the principle would not apply ❌
7. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not apply where a higher pay-scale is given to persons discharging the same duties to counter stagnation or lack of promotional avenues, or between employees of different organizations even with a common employer ❌
This ruling has significant implications for temporary employees and employers alike. It's important to consult with an HR professional or legal counsel to understand how this may specifically impact your situation.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Equal pay for Equal work - casual workers.pdf