Central Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Central Provident Fund Employees' Union (Delhi HC)
Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties, and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat, a perusal of the records of the Industrial Adjudicator does not show any evidence having been led in this regard, save for a comparative chart filed by the workmen Union.
However, I find that notwithstanding such a claim of the respondent workmen Union, it has not been the defense, neither before the Industrial Adjudicator nor before this Court of the petitioner employer, that persons with the designation of Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents in the petitioner employer were not performing the same work or duty and were not to have the same educational qualification as those with the same designation in the Central Government. Further, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner employer that with effect from 1st April 2001, such parity has been granted, and without any explanation as to why it was not so earlier, also confirms that there is parity in the employees of the petitioner employer and the employees of the Central Government with the same designation. The documents filed in this regard also show parity by designation.
Thus, notwithstanding the absence of evidence, by non-traverse and subsequent conduct, a case of parity is made out. The Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal (2008) 7 SCC 375, in the face of the employer Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation not producing any evidence to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities, and nature of duties were different from the counterparts and holding that the Courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to the employees and in ignorance of material and relevant factors, upheld the order of the High Court granting pay parity. The award cannot be found fault with for the said reason also.
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1446Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties, and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat, a perusal of the records of the Industrial Adjudicator does not show any evidence having been led in this regard, save for a comparative chart filed by the workmen Union.
However, I find that notwithstanding such a claim of the respondent workmen Union, it has not been the defense, neither before the Industrial Adjudicator nor before this Court of the petitioner employer, that persons with the designation of Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents in the petitioner employer were not performing the same work or duty and were not to have the same educational qualification as those with the same designation in the Central Government. Further, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner employer that with effect from 1st April 2001, such parity has been granted, and without any explanation as to why it was not so earlier, also confirms that there is parity in the employees of the petitioner employer and the employees of the Central Government with the same designation. The documents filed in this regard also show parity by designation.
Thus, notwithstanding the absence of evidence, by non-traverse and subsequent conduct, a case of parity is made out. The Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal (2008) 7 SCC 375, in the face of the employer Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation not producing any evidence to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities, and nature of duties were different from the counterparts and holding that the Courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to the employees and in ignorance of material and relevant factors, upheld the order of the High Court granting pay parity. The award cannot be found fault with for the said reason also.
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Delhi High Court ruling on pay parity emphasizes the principle of equal pay for equal work. It highlights the importance of ensuring that employees with the same designation should receive equal pay if their duties and responsibilities are the same, regardless of the employer. The case discussed in the query underscores the significance of providing evidence to establish differences in educational qualifications, recruitment methods, duties, and responsibilities when claiming disparity in pay. It also points out that historical practices of pay disparities may be rectified through subsequent actions that demonstrate parity. The reference to the Supreme Court case further solidifies the stance on pay parity and the need for employers to justify any discrepancies in pay based on valid and objective criteria. In conclusion, the ruling serves as a reminder for organizations to uphold fair compensation practices and adhere to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
VARIABLE PAY.doc