DTC vs. DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION REG

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on : November 16, 2015
Judgment Delivered on : November 27, 2015

+ LPA 969/2005

DTC ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate

versus

DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION REG ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Mr.Anuj Agarwal,
Ms.Sana Ansari and Ms.Vanessa
Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The instant matter relates to pay-scales of posts in the Security
Cadre of Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
‘DTC’).
2. The hierarchical structure of posts in the Security Cadre of DTC is
as under:-
Deputy Security Officer
I
I
Security Officer
I
I
Assistant Security Officer
I
I
Security Havaldar
I
I
Security Guard
LPA No.969/2005 Page 1 of 20


3. In the seventies the workmen working in Security Cadre of DTC,
through their Union : Delhi Transport Corporation Security Staff Union,
raised a demand of parity of pay-scales with the employees of Delhi
Police. The basis of claim was two-fold. Historically parity with the
employees of Delhi Police and secondly on the principle of region-cum-
industry formula.
4. The appropriate Government made following reference on October
24, 1979 to the Industrial Tribunal:-
“Whether the pay scales of the Security staff upto the rank of
the Asstt. Security Inspector need to be revised, and, if so, what
directions are necessary in this regard?”

5. The Workmen Union filed the statement of claim in which parity
with employees of Delhi Police was claimed essentially on the pleas : (i)
there has been parity between the pay-scales of posts in Security Cadre of
DTC and equivalent posts in Delhi Police till the year 1962; (ii)
subsequent to the year 1962 pay-scales attached to (equivalent) posts in
Delhi Police got revised consequent to implementation of report(s) of
First and Second Pay Commissions but correspondingly pay-scales
attached to posts in Security Cadre of DTC have not been revised; and
(iii) two higher posts in Security Cadre of DTC viz. Deputy Security
Officer and Security Officer are still having parity with equivalent posts
(Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector) in Delhi Police.
6. In essence, the Workmen Union had stated the basis of its claim for
parity of pay-scales in para 4 of its claim petition which reads as under:-
“4. That the management has not properly categorized the
employees working with it and belonging to the Security Staff
Section. The management should be called upon to properly
categorize and place the employees at pay scales which are
prevalent for similar categories in other institutions and
establishments. If these pay scales are compared to those
LPA No.969/2005 Page 2 of 20


prevalent in police service, it would be observed that the rank
of police Sub-Inspector is equivalent to Asstt. Security Inspector
in the DTC but the management has placed the category of
Asstt. Security Inspector in much lower pay scale than
available to Police Sub-Inspector. Police Sub-Inspector draws
the scale of ` 425-700. This very scale should be allowed to the
Asstt. Security Inspector instead of the prevalent scale of ` 330-
560. Similarly Head Constable in Delhi Police is equal to
Security Havaldar in DTC Management. Whereas Head
Constable in the Police draws the scale of 260-350, Security
`
Havaldar is given the scale of only ` 200-240/- with ` 10/- as
special allowance. This anomaly should be removed and the
pay scale of Security Havaldar should be raised to ` 260-350
with retrospective effect. Similarly pay scale of Security Guard
should be raised to ` 225-308 as available to Constable in Delhi
Police, instead of prevalent scale of DTC of ` 200-240. The
management has already recognized the pay scale of Delhi
Police for purposes of payment to their higher officials namely
Deputy Security Officer and Security Inspector. The Deputy
Security Officer is placed in the pay-scale of ` 650-900, which is
equivalent to police Inspector in Delhi Police. There is no
ground with the management to not to adopt the pay scales of
the Delhi Police for other lower categories of the Security staff
consisting of Asstt. Security Inspector, Security Havaldar and
the Security Guard. It would be appropriate to set out
hereunder the comparative statement of revised pay scales
prevalent in 1978 with Delhi Police and now with the
management respectively for purpose of clarify:

Revised pay scale of Delhi Police
D.S.P. 650-30-740-35-EB-880-40-1000-EB-1200
Police Inspector 550-25-750-EB—30-900
Police Sub-Inspector ` 425-15-560-560-EB-20-700
Of Police (S.I.)

Asstt. Sub-Inspector ` 330-8-378-10-400-EB-10-480

Head Constable ` 260-5-325-EB-8-350

LPA No.969/2005 Page 3 of 20


Constable ` 225-5-260-6-290-EB-6-308
(Matric)

Constable ` 210-4-250—EB-5-270
(Non-Matric)

Revised pay scale of DTC Security Staff

D.S.O. ` 650-30-740-35-810-EB-35-880-40-1000-EB-40-1200

Security ` 550-25-750-EB-20-900
Inspector (S.I.)

Asstt. Security ` 330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560
Inspector

Security ` 200-3-212-4-232-4-240 ( ` 10/- as Spl. Allowance)

Security ` 210-3-212-4-232-EB-4-240
Guards”

7. The claim (of parity) made by Workmen Union can be better
understood with the help of table drawn by us herein under:-

LPA No.969/2005 Page 4 of 20

8. In the reply filed to the statement of claim, DTC pleaded that parity
could not be claimed in view of difference in duties performed by
employees working in Security Cadre of DTC and those of Delhi Police.
It was further pleaded that there is no equivalence between the posts in
Security Cadre of DTC and those in Delhi Police. Lastly, it was pleaded
that DTC is going through a serious financial crisis and is thus not in a
position to revise/enhance pay-scales attached to posts in Security Cadre
of DTC. Paragraph 4 of the statement of claim was responded to as
under:-
“Contents of para No.4 are wrong and denied. The subordinate
staff of the Security Section has been categorized properly as
under and their pay scale and qualifications are indicated
against each:

a) Security Inspector: ` 550-25-750-EB-30-900

Graduate with at least 5 years supervisory
experience of Watch & Ward and Security
arrangement and knowledge of
maintenance of fire fighting equipment
and training of subordinate staff in using
the same in a big transport organizations
or in the army or in the Police.

b) Assistant Security 330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560
`
Inspector:

Matric or equivalent with at least 3 years
experience of Watch & Ward arrangement
in a big transport undertaking or in Army
or in Police. Other things being equal, ex-
LPA No.969/2005 Page 5 of 20


Army or Police Personnel (Ex. J.C.O.‟s or
ASI of police) will be preferred.

c) Havaldar: ` 200-3-212-4-232-EB-4-240 + ` 10/- Sp.
Pay.

th
Should have passed 8 Class from a
recognized School and should be ex-Army
or Policeman preferably a Pensioner.

d) Security Guard: ` 200-3-212-4-232-EB-4-240

Ex-Army or Policemen.

It is incorrect to compare the pay-scale of DTC Security Staff
with that of Police officials on the ground that every
department has its own establishment set up and the scales
depend upon the responsibility and duties to be performed by
the incumbent concerned. The comparison is further not
justified because the duties in both the departments are entirely
different from each other. While the functions of the Police
Officials are to maintain law and order in the city who are the
Custodian of the rights and property of the citizens and have to
keep a vigilant watch in the area of their operation, the duties
of the Security staff are only confined to the protection of the
Corporation‟s staff and property. They have only to check the
movement of any material, which is being taken in or out of
their premises of the Corporation‟s various Units so that the
unauthorized entry of persons in the Units and unauthorized
taking out of the material is safeguarded besides protection of
the D.T.C. properties. It would, therefore, be appreciated that
the duties of the security staff are only localized and limited to
a small area and do not normally involve risk to life but rather
they have merely to be vigilant while on duty. The scale of Dy.
Security Officer and Security Inspector correspond with that of
Dy. Supdt. Of Police Inspector. In the case of A.S.I., a medium
scale of ` 330-560 has been adopted as compared to two
different scales of Sub-Inspector and Asstt. Sub Inspector. As
against the categories of Head-Constable (Matric) and
Constable (non-matric) the D.T.C. has only the post of
Havaldars, Security Guards in the scales mentioned above. It is
LPA No.969/2005 Page 6 of 20


wrong and denied that rank of Police Sub Inspector is
equivalent to Assistant Security Inspector. In no circumstances,
the rank and pay scale can be equalized of the D.T.C. Security
staff to that of the Police. As already submitted above there is
no connection between the nature of duties of said departments.
Even otherwise it is purely the function of the individual
establishment and authority to create post and attach with the
pay scale as per its administration decision in the
circumstances of the nature of work and as such this Hon‟ble
Court cannot interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the
D.T.C. management. Correctness of the revised list of pay scale
of Delhi Police are denied for want of knowledge. The
claimants are not entitled to the scale claimed by them.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

9. In its rejoinder, the Workmen Union reiterated the stand taken by it
in its statement of claim. Paragraph 4 of the written statement was
responded as under:-
“That as to para 4 of the written statement, it is submitted that
the union has correctly made comparison of pay scales
prevailing in other institutions where member of the security
staff or Police are performing similar types of duties. The
reasoning given in the concluding portion of para 4 of the
written statement is not sustainable. Contents of para 4 of the
statement of claim are reiterated.”

10. Vide award dated August 22, 1985 the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi allowed the claim filed by the Workmen
Union and directed that employees working on the posts of Assistant
Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard in DTC are
entitled to same pay-scales as are granted to their counterparts in Delhi
Police with effect from January 01, 1979. Meaning thereby, it was
directed that Assistant Security Officer is entitled to pay-scale of 425-
`
700/- as granted to Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police; Security Havaldar is
entitled to pay-scale of ` 260-350/- as granted to Head Constable of Delhi
LPA No.969/2005 Page 7 of 20


Police and Security Guard is entitled to pay-scale of ` 225-300/- as
granted to Constable (Matric) of Delhi Police.
11. In so concluding, the reasons given by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court are as under:-
a) The argument of DTC that it does not have financial resources to
accede to the claim of Workmen Union is misconceived for the reason it
has come in the evidence that DTC had revised the pay-scales attached to
the two higher posts in Security Cadre of DTC viz. Deputy Security
Officer and Security Officer on numerous occasions in the past.
b) The balance sheets produced by DTC relate to the years prior to
making of reference in the present case and thus said balance sheets do
not establish that DTC does not have financial capacity to accede to the
claim of Workmen Union.
c) It is one of the sacred duties of the management to pay to the
workers their due remuneration. Management cannot afford the demand
of workmen for adequate wages on the ground of their financial
stringency.
d) The decision of DTC to put off the demand of Workmen Union for
higher pay-scales till the submission of report of Fourth Pay Commission
which is seized of the matter is neither just nor proper.
e) No cogent and reasonable explanation has been given by DTC to
deny parity of pay-scales to three posts in Security Cadre of DTC viz.
Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard with
equivalent posts in Delhi Police when two higher posts in Security Cadre
of DTC viz. Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer enjoy parity of
pay-scales with equivalent posts in Delhi Police.
f) The difference in qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the
posts in Delhi Police and those in Security Cadre of DTC makes no
LPA No.969/2005 Page 8 of 20


difference for the reason employees in Delhi Police are newly recruited
and lack experience whereas employees working in Security Cadre of
DTC are ex-serviceman and thus far more experienced than their
counterparts in Delhi Police.
12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, DTC filed a writ petition under Article
226 of Constitution of India in this Court which as per the Rules of this
Court was laid before a learned Single Judge of this Court.
13. During the pendency of the said writ petition, on April 10, 2001 a
meeting of the Board of DTC was held wherein it was decided to accept
the award dated August 22, 1985 passed Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.
14. Being relevant, we note following portion of the minutes of
meeting of Board of DTC held on April 10, 2001:-
“1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 22.8.1985
should be accepted.
2. The Security staff and DTC should be asked to withdraw
their case from the court.
3. The demand for 15% duty allowance to security
personnel is rejected.
4. The pay scales of Delhi Police for equivalent ranks
should be made applicable as per the award of the Tribunal.
5. Other allowances like uniform shoes, etc. should be as
per DTC rules.
6. Government of NCT, Delhi should be approached to
approve the decision of the Board in respect of the additional
funds required.
7. Private security staff deployment can be explored in case
the need arises in the future.” (Emphasis Supplied)
LPA No.969/2005 Page 9 of 20


15. But the Government of NCT of Delhi did not accept the aforesaid
decision taken by the Board of DTC in its meeting held on April 10,
2001.
16. Vide impugned judgment dated November 30, 2004, the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by DTC.
17. Briefly stated, the reasons given by the learned Single Judge are as
under:-
a) If at the higher level of posts in the security cadre pay parity with
Delhi Police was implemented by DTC there was no reason not to
maintain the parity at the lower posts.
b) Assuming the duties of employees of Delhi Police are more
onerous than the employees working in Security Cadre of DTC, this
degree of arduousness and difficulty must travel down the hierarchy. It
cannot be that the work of the police force in the higher echelons is
comparable to the work performed by officers holding higher posts in
Security Cadre of DTC and the disparity comes about only at the lower
levels. There must be some uniformity which is lacking and not explained
by DTC anywhere. It is not possible to accept the ipse-dixit of DTC that
there is difference in duties and responsibilities between the employees of
Delhi Police and those working in Security Cadre of DTC and this
difference is limited to some categories of employees only. DTC had
opportunity in support of said submission advanced by DTC but failed to
do so.
c) In the absence of any facts, figures or statistics, it cannot be said
DTC has the financial resources to pay to officers at the higher levels, a
salary equivalent to that given to similarly placed officers of Delhi Police
but the financial resources are inadequate when it comes to paying a
comparable salary to officers at lower level. The argument regarding
LPA No.969/2005 Page 10 of 20


financial incapacity of DTC could have been accepted only if DTC had
placed any empirical data to back up said argument which is not the case.
d) If there was any financial crunch or if DTC was running in losses
as alleged by DTC, the salaries of Deputy Security Officers and Security
Officers would not have been upwardly revised to keep pace with the
wages of their counterparts in Delhi Police.
e) The principle of region cum industry is to be applied only if there
is a necessity of searching for a comparison from a fair cross-section of
the industry for arriving at a just or reasonable wage structure. In the
present case, there is no such need because material is intrinsically
available from within the organization itself to provide adequate
guidance. If the management of one organization compares the wages of
its employees to the wages of employees of any other organization, then
the comparison must hold good for all categories of employees of the first
organization. It cannot reasonably be said that though the comparison
with Delhi Police is valid for a few categories of employees but for
others, the principle of region cum industry should be applied. If the
region cum industry principle is to apply, then it must be so for all
categories of employees and not just a select few.
f) It is settled law that the High Court should interfere with a decision
of an Industrial Tribunal only if there is substantial injustice which is not
the case in the present matter.
g) The fact of the matter is that on one hand DTC accepted that
impugned award dated August 22, 1985 should be implemented it i.e.
DTC has instructed its counsel to the contrary. However, Delhi
Administration (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) did not make any submission
regarding legality of impugned award dated August 22, 1985 but tacitly
agreed that the award should be set aside.
LPA No.969/2005 Page 11 of 20


18. In these circumstances, DTC has filed the above captioned intra-
court appeal.
19. As already noted hereinabove, the basis of claim of parity of pay-
scales with employees working in Delhi Police made by Union of
employees working in Security Cadre of DTC is two-fold. Historically
parity with the employees of Delhi Police and secondly on the principle
of region-cum-industry formula.
20. Let us first examine the plea of historical parity on basis whereof
the Workmen Union had claimed parity of pay-scales with the employees
working in Delhi Police.
21. The Workmen Union had averred that there was parity of pay-
scales between the posts in Security Cadre of DTC and equivalent posts
in Delhi Police since the year 1962. Subsequent to the year 1962 pay-
scales attached to posts in Delhi Police were revised/enhanced as a result
of implementation of reports of First and Second Pay Commissions but
correspondingly pay-scales attached to posts in Security Cadre of DTC
were not revised/enhanced.
22. The question which arises for consideration is thus: Is mere parity
between the pay-scales attached to the posts in Security Cadre of DTC
and those in Delhi Police for a short period of time enough to claim parity
of pay-scales by Workmen Union on the basis of so-called ‘historical
parity’?
23. The answer to aforesaid question lies in the following passage
contained in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (1) SCC
630 Union of India vs. Hiranmoy Sen :-
“Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
auditors and assistants have been historically treated at par in
the matter of pay scales. Although this fact has been denied by
the appellant, we are of the opinion that even if it is correct,
LPA No.969/2005 Page 12 of 20


that will not be of any help to the respondents. To give an
illustration, if post A and post B have been carrying the same
pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been
increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay
scale of post B to the same level. It is entirely on the
Government and the authorities to fix the pay scales and to
decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or
not. The judiciary must exercise self restraint and not encroach
into the executive or legislative domain.” (Emphasis Supplied)
24. In this regards, it would also be most apposite to refer to following
passage contained in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2010
(5) SCC 225 State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. West Bengal Minimum
Wages Inspector Association & Ors :-
“It is now well-settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on
the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference
category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one
of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts
which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier
being enjoyed with reference to their duties and
responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those
categories of posts. The Pay Commission has two functions; to
revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay
scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and,
secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or
downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay
scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions
attached to those posts. Therefore, the mere fact that at an
earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay
scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in
pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay
scale. As noticed above, one post which is considered as having
a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and
another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale
may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale
and not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher
pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of
the subject post and holders of reference category posts,
discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to,
LPA No.969/2005 Page 13 of 20


each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational
and unjust. The respondents have neither pleaded nor proved
that the holders of post of Inspector (Cooperative Societies),
Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue
Officers) were discharging duties and functions similar to the
duties and functions of Inspector-AMW. Hence, the prayers in
the original writ petition could not have been granted. In fact,
that is why the learned single Judge rightly held that whether
the posts were equivalent and whether there could be parity in
pay are all matters that have to be considered by the expert
bodies and the remedy of the respondent was to give a
representation to the concerned authority and the court cannot
grant any specific scale of pay to them.” (Emphasis Supplied)
25. In view of authoritative dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court
in West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspector Association ’s case (supra) that
‘ mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the
same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in
pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale‟
Workmen Union is not justified in claiming parity of pay-scales between
the posts in Security Cadre of DTC and equivalent posts in Delhi Police
merely because the posts in Security Cadre of DTC and those in Delhi
Police were carrying equal pay-scale at an earlier point of time.
26. A close perusal of award dated August 22, 1985 and judgment
dated November 30, 2004 passed by Labour Court and Single Judge
respectively shows that both Labour Court and Single Judge have granted
parity of pay-scales to (three) posts in Security Cadre of DTC with those
in Delhi Police on the basis that two higher posts in Security Cadre of
DTC carry same pay-scales at par with two posts in Delhi Police.
27. Is the above reasoning adopted by Labour Court and Single Judge
correct?
28. The principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ was examined in great
detail by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a
LPA No.969/2005 Page 14 of 20


member namely Pradeep Nandrajog J., in W.P. (C) No.3318/2010 titled
as „GNCT of Delhi, Delhi Fire Service vs. Bholla Dutt Sharma & Ors‟
decided on March 13, 2013 in following terms :-
“30. The principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ means
persons doing identical work under the same employer are not
to be treated differently in relation to their pay. The principle
of equal pay for equal work flows out of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India which prohibits discrimination.

31. The legal position pertaining to placement of posts in pay
scales: It is within the domain of the executive to determine as
to in what scale of pay a post has to be placed and since it is a
matter of expert opinion, courts intervention has to be slow and
that the court cannot assign to itself the role of an expert. But,
where it is apparently manifest that two posts are identical, it
would be denial of Article 14 to those who are placed in the
lower pay scale. In said eventuality, it would be within the
domain of the Court to issue appropriate directions.

32. In the decision reported as 2009 (13) SCC 635 State of
M.P. &Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, the Supreme court
has dealt with the jurisprudence relating to the concept of the
„equal pay for equal work‟ and citing various precedents on the
said propositions has laid down the following principles:-

(i) the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ can be invoked
only when the employees are similarly situated. The designation
or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of equality in
the matter of pay scales. In other words the equality clause can
be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is
'wholesome identity' between the holders of two posts;

(ii) in determining whether two posts are similarly placed or
there is 'wholesome identity' between the two, the Court has to
consider the factors like the source and mode of
recruitment/appointment to the posts, qualifications required,
the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities,
reliability, experience, confidentiality and functional need, etc;
LPA No.969/2005 Page 15 of 20


(iii) „equal pay for equal work‟ carries with it a positive
concept of equality and cannot be invoked for perpetuating
illegality i.e. an illegal or wrong order passed in one case
cannot be made the basis for compelling a public authority to
pass similar order in other cases; and

(iv) the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ does not
contemplate that only because the nature of work is same,
irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of
their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations, the
said principle would be automatically applied.
33. As observed by the Supreme Court, in the decision
reported as 2003 (6) SCC 123, State of Haryana &Anr. Vs.
Tilak Raj &Ors&Ors equivalence of posts has to be judged not
merely with reference to volume of work. The touch stone on
which equivalence has to be determined would to consider the
source of recruitment, educational and other qualifications
required, as also the qualitative and quantitative nature of jobs.

34. In yet another decision passed by the Supreme Court,
reported as 2009 (9) SCC 514 State of Punjab &Anr. Vs. Surjit
Singh &Ors.as many as 31 precedents have been summarized.
The principles culled out in the said decision are in consonance
with the law laid down in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai's case
(Supra) and are noted as under:-

(I) Further clarifying the law and re-iterating the concept of
wholesome identity, it was held that the principle of „equal pay
for equal work‟ is not always easy to apply. There are inherent
difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different
persons in different organizations or even in the same
organization. This is a concept which requires for its
applicability, complete and wholesome identity between a
group of employees claiming identical pay-scales and the other
group of employees who have already earned such pay-scales.
It has been held that the problem about equal pay cannot be
translated into a 'mathematical formula'.

(II) To claim a relief on basis of equality, it is for the claimant
to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant
LPA No.969/2005 Page 16 of 20


hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights
at par with the other group vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination.
(III) A classification based on difference in educational
qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere
nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a
craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is
doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in
regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be
different and even the nature of work assigned may be different.
It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application
of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ requires
consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The
accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may
differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume
of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards
reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but
the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the
applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and
determined by an expert body.
35. It is apparent that on what principles equality has to be
determined cannot be put in a water tight compartment. But
some of the factors to be noted are enumerated as under:
a) Source and mode of recruitment/appointment.
b) Educational and other qualifications required.
c) Nature of work.
d) Value of work.
e) Responsibilities involved.
f) Reliability.
g) Prior experience and expertise.
h) Confidentiality and functional needs.
36. It can thus safely be said that the aforesaid 8 guiding
principles need to be kept in mind, and any other, which may be
relevant on the facts and circumstances of each case has also to
be taken note of.”
LPA No.969/2005 Page 17 of 20


29. We note that petition seeking Leave to Appeal against afore-noted
judgment dated March 13, 2013 passed in W.P. (C) No.3318/2010 being
SLP (C) No.21406/2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order
dated March 07, 2014.
30. To summarize: ‘ Equality clause can be invoked in the matter of
pay scales only when there is 'wholesome identity' between the holders of
two posts‟.
31. In the present case, not even a word has been averred by Workmen
Union in its statement of claim that there was „wholesome identity‟
between the (three) posts in Security Cadre of DTC and those in Delhi
Police. (We note that even the claim made by Workmen Union regarding
equivalency of posts in Security Cadre of DTC and Delhi Police was
seriously disputed by DTC. Further, hierarchical structure of posts in
Security Cadre of DTC and those in Delhi Police was not comparable
inasmuch as there were five posts in Security Cadre of DTC while six
posts in Delhi Police. Lastly, DTC had categorically averred in para 4 of
its written statement reproduced by us hereinabove that duties of
employees working in Delhi Police were much more arduous and
materially different from those working in Security Cadre of DTC).
32. In the absence of any pleading by Workmen Union in its statement
of claim regarding wholesome identity between the posts in Security
Cadre of DTC and Delhi Police, the Workmen Union cannot claim parity
of pay-scales between (three) posts in Security Cadre of DTC with those
of Delhi Police. Merely because two posts in Security Cadre of DTC
carry same pay-scale as two posts in Delhi Police is not sufficient to grant
parity of pay-scales to all posts in Security Cadre of DTC with those of
Delhi Police.
LPA No.969/2005 Page 18 of 20


33. A similar was argument advanced by employees of Wireless
Section of Delhi Fire Service in Bholla Dutt ’s case (supra) that parity of
pay-scales be granted between the posts in Wireless Section(s) of Delhi
Fire Service and Delhi Police for the reason the highest post in Wireless
Section of Delhi Fire Service was granted similar pay scales as granted to
equivalent post in Wireless Section of Delhi Police, which argument was
repelled in following terms:-
“Nothing much turns on the fact that the highest post in the
Wireless Section in the Delhi Fire Service i.e. the post of
Wireless Officer has been granted higher pay scales than those
recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission. In order to
succeed in their claim for grant of similar pay scales to the
posts in the Wireless Section of the Delhi Fire Service as
granted to the posts in the Wireless Section of Delhi Police, the
respondents have to stand on their own legs and establish
wholesome and complete identity between all the posts in the
Wireless Section(s) of Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Police.
Merely because the highest post in the Wireless Section in the
Delhi Fire Service i.e. the post of Wireless Officer was granted
similar pay scales as granted to the posts in the Wireless
Section of the Delhi Police does not imply that there is complete
and wholesome identity between all the posts in the Wireless
Section(s) in the Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Police.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. Much emphasis was laid down by Workmen Union on the fact
that Board of DTC in its meeting held on April 10, 2001 decided to
implement the award dated August 22, 1985. Nothing much turns
thereon. Our experience shows that with an intention to placate the
employee, employers do tend to take decisions favorable to the
employee so long the financial pinch is faced by somebody else (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi in the instant case). (The said aspect has also been
noticed in judgment dated March 13, 2013 passed by a Division Bench
of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3318/2010 as affirmed by Supreme
LPA No.969/2005 Page 19 of 20


Court). In any case, the decision taken by the Board of DTC to
implement the award dated August 22, 1985 was subject to approval of
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which approval was not granted.
35. Lastly, we note that it has been submitted by Workmen Union in
written submissions dated November 23, 2015 filed before us that posts
of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard in
Security Cadre of DTC carry much lower pay-scales than their
equivalent posts in various departments of DTC. The said argument is
neither here nor there for both Labour Court and Single Judge have
decided the instant case with reference to parity of pay-scales of posts
in Security Cadre in DTC with those of Delhi Police and not with
equivalent posts in various departments of DTC.)
36. The net result of above discussion is that the present appeal is
allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated May 30, 2004 is set
aside. The award dated August 22, 1985 is set aside and the claim filed
by the respondent-Union is dismissed.
37. Parties shall bear their own costs all throughout.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE



(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 27, 2015
mamta
LPA No.969/2005 Page 20 of 20