Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
GRIH KALYAN KENDRA WORKERS’ UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1991
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
OJHA, N.D. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1173 1991 SCR (1) 15
1991 SCC (1) 619 JT 1991 (1) 60
1991 SCALE (1)1
ACT:
Constitution of India 1950-- Articles 14 and 16--Equal
pay for equal work--Principle-=-Grih Kalyan Kendra employees
--Treatment on par with employees of Union of India, New
Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi Administration--Whether
arises.
HEADNOTE:
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 Kalayan 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 central government
employees and (ii) employees employed at the various centres
of the kendra on ad-hoc basis, some of whom have been
working an fixed 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 filed 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 is prayed by them
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents
to pay regular pay scale on par with other employees-
16
performing similar work under the Union of India, New Delhi
Municipal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi
Administration, as according to them 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 respodents are under
constitutional obligation to pay them higher scale of pay
prescribed for the Government Departments, on the principle
"equal pay for equal work". They have raised claim to
pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. also. The
respondents contest their claim on the plea that the
employees working in the kendra are not regular employees
and the duties performed by them are not comparable to any
of the employees working under NDMC or any other DEPARTMENT
OF 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 employees who can be regarded, even broadly, as
being situated similarly as the 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 findings recorded by the former Chief Justice to
whom the matter was referred earlier clearly shows that
there has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not
being discriminated from those who are situated equally.
The petitioner’s claim for the benefit of equal pay for
equal work, therefore must fail. 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 also fail. [27H; 28A-B]
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India and ors., [1979] 3 SCC 489; P.K.
Ramachandra lyer & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1984] 2
SCC 141; B.S. Minhas v.Indian Statistical Institute and
Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 582; Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad
v. Union of india and ors., [1985] 2 S.C.C. 644; Surya
Narain Yadav & Ors. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and
Others, [1985] 3 SCC 38; Randhir Singh v. Union of India,
[1982] 1 SCC 618; Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P
JUDGMENT:
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P.,[1986] 1 SCC 637,
Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi
Administration, [1987] 4 SCC 505; Bhagwan Dass v.State of-
17
Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of Haryana,
[1988] 3 SCC 354; Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily
Wage Employees Association 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,
[19890 3 SCC 1, referred to.
&
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 869 of 1988.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Govind Mukhoty, Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalitha Kaushik
for the Petitioner.
V.C. Mahajan, Girish Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini for
the Respondents.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINGH, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner Union or
Behalf of the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra for a
declaration the Girh Kalayan 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 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:
"(a) To promote social, economic, cultural and
educational activities for the betterment of the
Central Government employees and their families;
(b) To impart technical and vocational training in
home 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 Central Government employees
for supplementing family incomes."
18
For attaining the aforesaid objectives, the Kendra has
been conducting various activities including; (i) holding of
craft classes for training in cutting, tailoring and
embroidering for the house-wives and grown-up 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,gymnasia and in-door
games and sports at the samaj sadans (Community Halls); (v)
conducting stitching of liveries for Class III (Group C) and
Class IV (Group D) employees of Government Departments and
Public Sector Undertakings. The Kendra runs 29 nursery
centres out of which 21 are in Delhi, 3 in Dehradun 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, one
located at Delhi and 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.
The Grih 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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
employees who work at the Centres are paid on piece rate
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 other
Central Government offices who draw their salaries in
regular scale of pay alongwith the deputation and other
allowances as admissi-
19
ble to the Central Government employees; (ii) employees
employed at the various centres of the kendra on ad-hoc
basis some of whom have been working on fixed salary called
honorarium while others are working 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 Kendra. The services of the employees falling
in the second category are terminable at any time at the
sweet will of the officers of the 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 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 the
Constitution and therefore the respondents are under
constitutional obligation to prescribe similar scales of pay
as applicable to the employees of NDMC and Delhi
Administration and who are doing the same work as performed
by the employees of the Kendra. The petitioner has claimed
relief for declaring the kendra to be an instrumentality of
State and for the issue of a direction directing the
respondents to pay equal pay as paid to the similar
employees doing similar work in NDMC and other Departments
of Delhi Administration, along with other benefits like
gratuity, pension and provided fund. The petitioner’s claim
for equal pay as paid to the employees 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 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 dependents of the poor Government servants
and there was no intention to provide them with any regular
employment. it is further stated that in the nature of
things and in consonance with original aim the employees of
the Grih Kalyan Kendra were expected to leave the
organisation once they have acquired skill and experience
and seek other opportunity of employment for the betterment
of their career elsewhere. The employees of the Kendra were
expected to leave the organisation once they lost the status
of dependent of low paid-
20
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
are not regular employees and the duties performed by them
are not comparable to any of the employees working under
NDMC or any Department of Delhi Administration 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
contended that though the Grih Kalyan Kendras are managed by
the Board as contemplated by the Rules of the Registered
Societies, the Union of India have 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. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3
SCC 489; P. K. Ramachandra Lyer & 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 Electricity
Board & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 38. WE do not think it necessary
to consider this question in detail as in our opinion given
on an assumption that the Grih Kalyan Kendra is an
instrumentality of a State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution and the petitioners are entitled to
enforce their fundamental 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 proceed on the assumption that the Grih Kalyan
kendra is a State for the purposes of Chapter IV of the
Constitution and consequently this petition under Article 32
of the Constitution is maintainable and the petitioners are
entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the 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 Constitution 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-
21
work and providing security for service by regularising
causal employment 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 fundamental right to equal pay for
equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of
equality and social justice in a number of decisions. See:
Randhir Singh v. Union of Ind, [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 &
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
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.
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 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
similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties, the
qualification 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 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-
22
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 employment. 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 scale 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 petitioners have referred to the scale of pay paid
to the similar employees of NDMC and Delhi Development
Authority under the Delhi Administration for the various
employees to demonstrate that the employees of the Kendra
are being discriminated as they are paid lower amount of
salary although they perform the same duties and functions
as performed by corresponding employees holding
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
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
2. Creche Attendants 758 1139 1139
3. Creche Ayahs 592 792 792
4. Craft Teachers 786 1260 1444
5. Nursery Teachers 712 1260 1260
6. Nursery Ayahs 430 792 792
7. Office Incharge of
Crech Centre etc. - 1140 -
8. Office Asstt./Typist 880 1140 -
9. i) Cutters (Tailors) - 1140 -
ii) Stitchers (Checker)870 1140 -
iii) Drivers 565 1140 -
iv) Peons - 1140 -
v) Chowkidars 750 792 -
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 of NDMC and other Departments of Delhi
Administration and Union of India. 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 recommendation. The
Court requested the Former Chief Justice make
recommendations taking into account the following matters:
"1. Whether other similarly situated employees
(engaged in similar comparable work, putting in
comparable hours of work, in a comparable
employment) are paid 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-
24
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 form
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 and elaborate report to the Court making
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 6 th 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
which contains the recommendations, it is as follows:
"Having given a careful thought to these unusual
considerations, 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, an ad-hoc method of stepping up
their meagre honorarium 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 circumstances, 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) described earlier in this Report should be paid
a fixed monthly honorarium according to the
following scale:
25
1. Employees who have put in a service of 20 years
of more 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.
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 honorarium which is paid to them at present.
5. Employees who have put in a service of 1 to 5
years should be paid 60% (sixty per cent) more of
the honoratium which is paid to them at present.
These recommendation should operate
retrospectively 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
employees of the Kendra of the (b) category should
be paid arrears of honorarium upon the revised
basis, before 31st 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 respondents 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 remuneration
accordingly. The Former Chief Justice’s recommendation for
ad-hoc method of stepping up of honorarium until such time
as the Government formulates a new scheme for giving orderly
shape of the Kendra has been accepted by the respondents and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
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-
26
with reference to the original objectives of Kendra of
imparting skills to a steady stream 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 Girh 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
employment 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 similarly situated employees (engaged in
similar comparable work, putting in comparable
hours of work, in a comparable 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 somewhat similar post, that is, posts
bearing similar duties and designation. It is
difficult to conceive of any other service which
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.
27
Therefore, the fact that those other employees may
be 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 between unequals. If the facts of a
given case fail to establish that persons who are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
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 reasonable tests and not by the application of
a mathematical formula of exactitude. Try
howsoever as one may be applying broad and
reasonable criteria, the conclusion is inescapable
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 similarly as any others.
This then in my answer to the first question
referred by the Supreme Court for my consideration.
Putting it briefly, there being no other Government
or semi-Government employees who can be regarded,
even broadly, as 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 of facts founded on the material placed before him
by the parties. 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 the
petitioner to reopen the same question by means of the
present writ petition. In the Supplementary affidavit filed
on behalf of the petitioner an attempt was made to dispute
the findings recorded 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
discriminated from those who are situated equally. The
petitioners’ claim
28
for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, therefore must
fail.
Since the petitioner’s claim for parity in pay with
regard to the employees working in the New Delhi Municipal
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.
29