-

GRIH KAL YAN KENDRA WORKERS' UNION

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JANUARY 9, 1991

[K.N. SINGH AND N.D OJHA, JJ.]

Constitution of India 1950-Articles 14 and 16--c-Equal pay for

equal

work-Principle-Grih Kalyan Kendra employees-Treatment

,

on par with employees of

Union of India, New Delhi Municipal Com­

,l , mittee and Delhi Administration-Whether arises.

1

Grih Kalyan Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1960. It is a welfare organization working under the

aegis

of the Department of Personnel and .Administrative Reforms,

Ministry

of Home Affairs. Its object is to establish Kendras to help

needy Government servants especially those belonging to the lower

income group by providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful

work and training during their leisure time so that the

dependents of

such .Government servants may be able to supplement to the meagre

income

of the family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining

employment elsewhere.

In furtherance of this object, the Kendra has

set up nursery centres, craft centres, and creches etc

.. in Delhi and other

cities where the work of imparting necessary training is carried on. The

management

of the Kalyan Kendras vests in the Board which consists

of

officers of the Department of Personnel and in order to augment its

resources the Ministry gives grant to the Kendras. The terms and

conditions

or tenure of service of its employees have not been regulated

by any Rules framed by the Kendra. The staff of the Kendras fall in

two categories viz. (i) regular staff taken on deputation from other

central government

offices who draw their salaries in regular scales of

pay with the deputation and other allowances as admissible_to the cent­

ral government employees and (ii) employees employed at the various

centres

of the Kendra on ad-hoc basis, some of whom have been

work­

ing an f"~ed salary called honorarium while others are working on the

piece

rate wages, without any gratuity or pension or Provident Fund.

The workers'

Union of the Kendra has f"ded this writ petition for

a declaration

that the Kendra wherein the workers are employed is a

'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and such it

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

is prayed by them that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the

respondents to pay regular PaY scale on par with other employees H

15

•

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

A

performing similar work under the Union of India, New Delhi Munici-

pal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi Administration, as

~ according to them the wages paid to them are low as compared to the

employees performing identical duties in the said Departments. Their

contention

is that the Kendra being a 'State', the respondents are

· under constitutional obligation to pay them higiJer scale of pay pre-

B scribed for the Government Departments, on the principle "equal pay

for equal work". They have raised claim to pension, gratuity and pro-

vident fund etc. also. The respondents contest their claim on the plea

that the employees working in tbe Kendra are not regular employees

/

and the duties performed by theJD are not comparable to any of the

--

employees working under NDMC or any other DEPARTMENT OF

'

~ c

THE Delhi Administration or Union of India, the Status of the Kendra

being unique.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court,

HELD: There being no other Government or semi-Government '(

D employees who can be regarded, even broadly, as being situated simi-

larly as tbe employees of the Kendra, the principle of equal pay for

equal work cannot be said to be violated

by

the payment of mere

honorarium to these employees, [27E)

The fmdlngs recorded by the former Chief Justice to whom the

E

matter was referred earlier clearly shows that there has been no

discrimination as the petitioners are not being discriminated from those

.~

wbQ are situated equally, The petitioner's claim for the benefit of

eqµal pay for equal wor~, therefore must fall. Their claim for the

-issue of direction to the respondents to provide for the pension,

gratuity and provident fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan must

F also fail. [27H; 28A-B]

~

I

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of

'---(

India and Ors., {1979] 3 SCC 489; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v.

...

Union of India and Ors., [1984] 2 ·sec 141; B.S. Minhas v. Indian

Statistical Institute and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 582; Bihar State Harijan

G

Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India and Ors., [1985] 2 S.C.C. 644; Surya

Narain Yadav & Ors. v. Bthar State Elei:tricity Board and Others, [1985]

3 SCC 38; Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [198i] 1 SCC 618; Daily

'r Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union of

.India, (1988] 1SC~122; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., [1986] 1

SCC 637, Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor,

ft Delhi Administration, [1987) 4 SCC 505; Bhagwan Dass v, State of

•

WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 17

_)_

Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of Haryana, [1988] 3 SCC

354; Dharwad District P. W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Asso-

A

ciation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Others, [1990] 2 SCC 396;

~ Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v.

Union of India, [1989] 3 SCC I, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION;Writ Petition No. 869 of 1988. B

;

(Undet Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

,l.

·,,

Govind Mukhoty, Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalitha Kaushik for

the Petitioner.

V.C. Mahajan, Girish Chandra and

Ms. A. Subhashini for the

c

Respondents.

l

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SINGH, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution D

of India, filed by the petitioner Union on behalf of the employees of

the Grih Kalyan Kendra for a declaration that the Grih Kalyan Kendra

wherein the workers are employed

is 'State' within_ the meaning of

Article

12 of the Constitution and for the issuance of a writ of •

mandamus directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay

regular pay scales in parity with other employees performing similar

E

work under the

Union of India like New Delhi Municipal Committee

and

other Departments of Delhi Administration.

Grih Kalyan Kendra

is a Society registered under the Societies

Registration Act

1860. Its objectives as set out in the Memorandum of

;..:, Association are as follows: F

r

"(a) To promote social, economic, cultural and educa-

tional activities for the betterment of the Central Govern-

ment employees and their families;

(b) To impart technical and vocational training in home G

crafts and other house-hold arts for useful utilisation of

•<. ..............

leisure time; and

~

( c) To organise and promote economic activities that may

provide opportunities for gainful employment to families of

Central Government employees for supplementing

family H incomes."

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

For attaining the aforesaid objectives, the Kendra has been conducting

A various activities including; (i) holding of craft classes for training in ~

cutting, tailoring and embroidering for the house-wives and grown-up

B

c

D

girls during their leisure hours; (ii) imparting nursery education for

children in

the age group of 3 to 7 years; (iii) running of creches or

day-care centres for children between the age of

90 days and 7 years;

(iv) providing the recreational facilities like T.V. shows, libraries,

gymnasi,a and in-door games and sports at the samaj sadans (Com-

munitr Halls); (") con_cfucting_stitching of liveries for Class III (Group ,)....

C) and Class IV (Group D) employees of Government Departments -

and Putllic Sector Undertakings. The Kendra runs 29 nursery centres,

out oj ~hich 21 are in Delhi, 3 in Deh!adun and one each at Faridabad, ~

Nagpur, Jaipur, Bombay and Madras. It also runs 43 crafts centres,

out of which 23 are in Delhi, 5 in, Bombay, 8 in Madras, 2 in Dehradun

and one each at Jaipur, Nagpur, Faridabad, Narela and Bahadurgarh.

The Kendra also runs 19 centres for day-care called creches out of

which

16 are in Delhi and one each at Faridabad, Madras and Jaipur.

The Kendra conducts two production centres,

o~e located at Delhi and T

the ·other at Madras. In these centres stitching of liveries for Class III

and Class IV employees of Government Departments and Public

Sector Undertakings are undertaken with a view to provide gainful

employment for dependent ladies members of the Government

servants.

E

The

Gi;ih Kalyan Kendra is a welfare organisation working under

~

the aegis of the Department of Personnel and Administrative

Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs. The purpose and object of

establishing the Kendras

were to help needy Government servants

especially those belonging to the lower income group by providing to

their dependents opportunity of gainful work or training during their

p leisure time. The scheme stipulated to ensure that the dependents of ..,.~

such Government servants should be able to supplement to meagre .....__,,.

income of the family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining :.

employment elsewhere. Initially, the employees of Kendra were paid

honorarium only and at no time they had any regular scales of pay.

Some of the employees who work at the Centres are paid on piece rate

G basis.

The control and management of the Kendras vest in a Board

which consist

of officers of the Department of Personnel. The

Union

of India supplements the income_ of the Kendras by providing grants --,-.

and monetary support. The employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra fall

in two broad categories; (i) regular staff taken on deputation from

otheir Central Government offices who draw their salaries in regular

H scale ~f pay_ alongwith the deputation and other allowances as admissi-

WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 19

J

bfe to the Central Government employees; (ii) employees employed at

A

the various centres of the Kendra on ad-hoc basis some of whom have

been working on fixed salary called honorarium while others are work-

ing

on the piece rate wages at the production centres without there

being any provision for any scale of

pay and other benefits like,

gratuity, pension, provident fund etc. The terms and conditions

of

tenure of service have not been regulated by any Rules framed by the B

Kendra. The services of the employees

falling in the second category

i are terminable at any time at the sweet will of the officers of the

..l

~ .,

Kendras.

The petitioner has asserted that the employees of the Kendra are

paid low wages and their salaries are far less than what

is paid to the

c

__.,....

employees doing similar nature of work in the organisations like

NDMC and other Departments of the Delhi Administration. It is

asserted that the Kendra is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of

1

the Constitution and therefore the respondents are under constitu-

tional obligation to prescribe similar scales

of pay as applicable to the

employees

of NDMC and Delhi Administration and who are doing the D

same work as performed by the employees of the Kendra. The

i

petitioner has claimed relief for declaring the Kendra to be an instru-

mentality

of

State and for the issue of a direction directing the respon-

dents to pay equal pay as paid to the similar employees doing similar

/--

work in NDMC and oher Departments of Delhi Administration, along

with

other benefits like gratuity, pension and provident fund. The

E

petitioner's claim for equal pay as paid to the ernployees of NDMC

and Delhi Administration is contested by the respondents. In the ......

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is asserted that

the Grih Kalyan Kendra was started as a welfare society with the aim

of helping the needy Government servants especially those belonging.

~ to lower income group by providing to their dependents opportunity ·of

F

J

gainful work, so that, they might be able. to supplement the meagre

income

of their family and at the same time they may also gain

skill

and experience in order to improve their career elsewhere. Grih

Kalyan Kendra was expected

to be a stepping stone for such depen-

dents of the poor Government servants and there was no intention to

provide them with any regular employment.

It is further stated that in

G

the nature of things and in consonance with original aim the emp-

-·--·

loyees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra were expected to leave the organisa-..

tion once they have acquired skill and experience and seek other

opportunity of

employment for the betterment of their career else-

where. The employees of the Kendra were expected to leave the

organisation once they lost

·the status of dependent of low paid H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] I S.C.R.

Government employees. However, the employees of the Kendra have

not met any of these expectations. Some of the employees once

inducted into the organisation have continued for a number of years.

The employees working in the Kendra are not regular employees and

the duties performed by them are not comparable to any of the emp­

loyees working under NDMC or any Department of Delhi Administra­

tion or under the

Union of India. The status of the Kendra is a unique

one where the work and duties performed by its employees are quite

different in nature

than those performed by the employees of NDMC

and Delhi Administration.

Shri Govind Mukhoty learned counsel for the petitioner con­

tended that though. the Grih Kalyan Kendras are managed by the

Board as contemplated by the Rules of the Registered Societies, the -

Union of India h~ve the pervasive control over its functions, it is an .-

instrumentality and agency of the Union Government and therefore it

is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He

placed reliance on decisions

of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.

r

International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3 SCC 489;

P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCC

141; B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., [1983] 4 SCC

582; Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.,

[ 1985] 2 SCC 644 and Surya Narain Yadav & Ors. v. Bihar State Electri-

city l}oard & Ors., (1985] 3 SCC 38. We do not think it necessary to

consider this question in detail as in our opinion given op an. assump-~

tion that the Grih Kalyan Kendra is an instrumentali(y of a State

within th¢ meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the petitio-

ners are entitled to enforce their fyndamental rights against it, it is ,....

difficult to uphold this contention that the respondents have violated

any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. We accordingly pro-

ceed on the assumption that the Grih Kalyan kendra is a State for the °"1"4

purposes of Chapter IV of the Constitution and consequently this ·

petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable and the

petitionerscare entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the

enforcement of their fundamental right founded on the principle of

equal pay for equal work.

Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Con­

stitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles

of State Policy as contained in Article 39( d) of the Constitution

"Equal

pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in

service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of

equality in Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal

...

..

WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 21

work and providing security for service by regularising casual employ­

men.t within a reasonable period has been accepted by this Court

as a

constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern.

It has ceased to be a judge

made law as

it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which

ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal

opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed

employees

of the State

.. This Court has zealously enforced the funda­

mental right to equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitu­

tfona1 goal of equaHty and social -justice Tn a number of decisions. See:

Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 1 SCC 618; Daily Rated

Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union of India,

[1988] 1 SCC 122; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986] 1 SCC

637; Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD, [1986] 1 SCC 639;

R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor Delhi Administration, [1987] 4 SCC 505

Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, (1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of

Haryana, (1988] 3 SCC 354 and Dharwad District P. W.D. Literate

Daily Wage Employees Association

& Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 396. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal

work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is

applicable to its full vigour.

A

B

c

D

The question then arises whether the respondents have practised

discrimination in denying the employees of the Kendra pay which the

Union of India has been paying to other similarly placed employees

doing the same

or similar work. This question is of primary importance E

which requires investigation of facts.

Unless, it is demonstrated that

the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra are discriminated in matters

relating

to pay and other emoluments with the other similarly placed

employees, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be

applied. While considering this question, it

is not necessary to find out

similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable F

similarity in the

nature of work, performance of duties, the qualifica-

tion and the quality of work performed by them. It is permissible to

have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay scale,

value

of work and responsibility and experience. The classification

must, however, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be

achieved. In Federation

of All India Customs and Central Excise G

Stenographers v.

Union of India, (1988] 3 SCC 91. Sabyasachi

Mukharji, J. (as he then was) observed:

"There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability

and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the

responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that H

A

B

c

D

E

22

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is

an element of value judgment by those who are charged

with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and

other

conditions of service.

So long as such value judgment is

made bona fide, reasonable or an intelligible criteria which

has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such

differentiation will

not amount to discrimination. It is

important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work if a

concomitant

of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it

follows naturally

that equal pay for unequal work will be a

negation

of that

right."

Elaborating the aforesaid observation the learned Judge further

observed thus:

''The same amount of physical work may entail different

quality

of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more

tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of emp­

loyment.

The problem about equal pay cannot always be

translated into a mathematical formula.

If it has a rational

nexus with the object

to be sought for, as reiterated before

a certain

amount of value judgment of the administrative

authorities who

are charged with fixing the pay

scaJe has to

be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the

court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or

based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in

fact."

The petit10ners have referred to the scale of pay paid to the

similar employees of NDMC and Delhi Development Authority under

r

-

p the Delhi Administration for the various employees to demonstrate ~.

that the employees of the Kendra are being discriminated as they are ~-rJ

paid lower amount of salary although they perform the same duties

G

H

and functions as performed by corresponding employees holding

corresponding posts under the NDMC and Delhi Administration. The

chart as set out in the petition is as under: ·

S. No. Designation GKK Salaries per month

NDMC DDA/C. Govt.

1. Incharge Creche 788 1139 1380

'!

_)

I

.l

")

--

-

,..,,

I

•

-.·

'

"

WORKERS' UNION

v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 23

2. Creche Attendants 758 1139 1139

A

3. Creche Ayahs 592 792 792

4. Craft Teachers 786 1260 1444

5. Nursery Teachers 712 1260 1260

6. Nursery Ayahs 430 792 792 B

7. Office Incharge

of Crech Centre etc. 1140

8. Office Asstt. /Typist 880 1140

9. i) Cutters (Tailors) 1140

-

ii) Stitchers (Checker) 870 1140

c

iii) Drivers 565 1140

iv) Peons 1140

v) Chowkidars 750 792

D

10. Sweepers 225

In 1984 the employees filed Writ Petition No. 13924 of 1984 in

this Court claiming relief for the payment of wages on the principle of

equal pay for equal work, seeking parity with the employees ofNDMC

and other Departments of Delhi Administration and Union of India. E

Since, the matter involved investigations of facts, this Court with a view

to find

out as to which other employees similarly situated were paid

more than the employees working in the Kendra and also to ascertain

whether the principle of equal pay for equal work was being violated

by the Kendra, on the suggestion of the parties referred the matter to

Former Chief Justice

Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, for his report and F

recommendation. The Court requested the Former Chief Justice to

make recommendations taking into account the following matters:

"l. Whether other similarly situated employees (engaged

in similar comparable work, putting in comparable hours of

work, in a comparable employment) are paid higher pay G

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 aeserves

ti

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

24

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

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

benign motivity and even extending

it.''

Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the parties including the

petitioners appeared before the Former Chief Justice. After hearing

the parties and considering the entire material placed before him, the

Former Chief Justice submitted an elaborate report to the Court mak­

ing comprehensive suggestions. The respondents to the writ petition

agreed to implement the recommendations made by the Former Chief

Justice.

Thereupon, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated

6th May 1988 stating that the employees of the Kendra are entitled to

the benefits recommended in the Report of the Former Chief Justice.

In order to appreciate the controversy, we consider it necessary to

refer to the concluding part of the Report which contains the

recom­

mendations, it is as follows:

"Having given a careful thought to these unusual consi­

derations, I am of the opinion that until such time as the

Government formulates a new scheme for giving an orderly

shape

to the Kendra so that, by the application of a rational

policy

the remuneration of the Kendra employees could be

fixed

on a fair basis, ari ad-hoc method of stepping up their

meagre

ronorarium should be adopted, linked to the

length

of service put in by the employees. No other test

seems feasible since, especially, the Kendra employees are

not prohibited from taking any other employment, they are

not recruited through an open competition, there is no age

bar for their recruitment or retirement and since, being

dependents of Government servants, they are eligible in

that capacity for receiving other benefits like free medical

aid and leave travel concessions.

In view of these circums-

. tances, to place the Kendra employees on par with other

employees would be treating unequals as equals which

would conceivably draw a constitutional challenge.

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the

employees

of the Kendra belonging to category (b)

des­

cribed earlier in.this Report should be paid a fixed monthly

honorarium according to the following scale:

(r-

' .....

-

_)

WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] . 25

L Employees who have put in a service of 20 years or more A

should be paid 100% (one hundred per cent) more of the

honorarium which

is paid

to them at present.

2. Employees who have put

in a service of 15 to

20 years

.should be paid 90% (ninety per cent) more of the

honorarium which

is paid to them at present. B

•

3. Employees who have put in a service of 10 to 15 years

should be paid 80% (eighty per cent) more of the

honorarium which

is paid to them at present.

4. Employees. who have put in a service of 5 to

10 years

should be paid 70% (seventy per cent) more of the C

honorarium which

is paid to them at present.

5. Employees who have put in a service of l

_to 5 years

should be paid

60% (sixty per cent) more of the honora-

tium which

is paid to them at present. D

These recommendations should operate retrospec­

tively with effect from·

1st August 1986, being the

date on

which the Supreme Court passed its order referring the

matter to me. The delay in making these recommendations

is not due to any default on the part of the employees. The E

employees of the Kendra of the (b) categor)' should be paid

arrears of honorarium upon the revised basis, before 3 lst

October,

1987."

The Court accepted the Report of the Former Chief Justice and

disposed

of the petition on a statement made on behalf of the respon-F

dents that they would implement the recommendations made in the

Report of the Former Chief Justice. There is no dispute that the

recommendations made by the Former Chief Justice have been

implemented and the employees of the Kendra are being paid remu­

neration accordingly. The Former Chief Justice's recommendation for

ad-hoc method of stepping up of honorarium until such time as the G

Government formulates a new scheme for giving orderly shape of the

Kendra has been accepted by the respondents and a Sub-Committee

has

been set up by the Grih Kalyan Kendra Board to review the

organisational and operational arrangements in the Kendra

. at the

headquarters and in the cities and to suggest measures for the

improvement

of its functioning. The Committee has been directed H

A

B

c

D

•

E

G

H

26

0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

with reference to the original objectives of Kendra of imparting skills

to a .steady st.ream of dependents of Government employees and to

make suggestions for making further improvements. The Committee

has

not yet submitted its report. We hope and trust that the Committee

will submit its

report and the Grih Kalyan Kendra will take steps to

improve the functioning

of the Kendras including the remuneration of.

its employees.

In the instant writ petition the petitioners have raised precisely

the same question as raised in the earlier Writ

Petition 13924 of 1984.

Their grievance of discrimination in matters relating to payment of

scale of pay and other emoluments was examined in the earlier writ

petition and the Former Chief Justice held that there was no employ­

ment comparable to the employment held under the Grih Kalyan

Kendra and therefore they could not seek parity with other employees

working

under NDMC or the Delhi Administration or

Union of India.

We consider it necessary to refer to the relevant part of the Report of

the Former Chief Justice, which is as under:

"The first consideration which I am required by the

Supreme Court to take into account

is

"whether other simi­

larly situated eJllployees (engaged in similar comparable

work, putting in comparable hours of work, in a compar­

able employment) are paid a higher pay and as to what

should be the entitlement of the complaining employees in

order not to violate the equal pay for equal work

principle."

The facts and the statistical data set out above will

show

that the employment in the Kendra is unique in

.character,

that is to say, it is not comparable with any other

employment . .Its motivation and genesis coupled with the

absence

of rules governing service conditions elude even a

broad comparison between the employees of the Kendra

and· the employees

of other organisations holding some­

what similar posts, that is, posts bearing similar duties and

designation. It

is difficult to conceive of any other service

whic.h one can enter at any age, regardless of educational

qualifications, and from which one can retire when one

chooses. It

is something like

'·come if you like, go when

you please". Since there is no other employment which can

bear a reasonable comparison with employment in the

service

of the Kendra, it is difficult to perceive employees

similarly situated as those in the service of the Kendra.

>-

--

T

-

WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 27

Therefore, the fact that those other employees may be

A

J-.

drawing higher pay will not justify the conclusion that the

employees of the Kendra of Category (b ), with whom alone

we are concerned, are denied the benefit

of the

principle

"Equal pay for equal work". It is trite that the concept of

· equality implies and requires equal treatment for those

who are situated equally. One cannot draw comparisons B

.. between unequals. If the facts of a given case fail to

I

establish that persons who are aggrieved are not situated

-~ equally with others, the benefits available to those others

·-·

cannot ipso facto be given to the former though, of course,

)

the question as to whether persons are situated equally has

to be determined by the application of broad and reason-

.....

able tests and not by the application of a mathematical

c

formula of exactitude. Try howsoever as one may be apply-

ing

broad and reasonable criteria, the conclusion is ines-

capable

that there are no other employment comparable to

the employment in the (b) category of the Kendra, that

means that the aggrieved employees are not situated simi- D

larly as any others.

This then

is my answer to the

first question referred

by the Supreme Court for

my consideration. Putting

it.

.?-,

briefly, there being no other Government or semi-Govern-

ment employees who can be regarded, even broadly,

as

E

being situated similarly as the employees of the Kendra

with whom

we are concerned, the principle of equal pay for

-

equal work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of

mere honorarium to these

employees."

)"

The above findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice are findings F

of facts founded on the material placed before him by the parties.

r·~

These findings were accepted by this Court and the writ petition was

accordingly disposed of by an order dated 6th May 1988. Now it is not

open to th'-' petitioners to reopen the same question by means of the

-

present writ petition. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of

the petitioners an attempt was made to dispute the findings recorded

G

by the Former Chief Justice but in fairness, Shri Govind Mukhoty

-...,;

made a candid statement before us during the course of the arguments

that the findings of the Former Chief Justice are not disputed. The

findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice clearly show that there

has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not being discri-

minated from those who are situated equally. The petitioners' claim

fl

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

A

for the benefit of equal pay for equal work,

th~refore must fail.

B

Since the petitioner's claim for parity, in pay with regard to ·the

employees working in the New Delhi~unicipal Committee and other

Departments of the Delhi Administration and Union of India has

failed,

their claim for the issue

Of direction to the respondents· to

provide for the pension, gratuity and provident fund for the employees

of the Grih Kalyan Kendra must also fail.

In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There

will be no order as to costs.

Y. Lal Petition dismissed .

.....

-