Contract workers claiming equal pay must prove parity in duties and responsibilities.

BHEL contract workers, represented by their union, claimed that they had worked for years in duties of a permanent nature and performed work comparable to that of BHEL’s regular employees.

They sought equal pay for equal work before the Labour Commissioner under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the U.P. Contract Labour Regulations, 1975.

The Labour Commissioner, by order dated 5 January 2005, directed equal wages and allowances for 265 contract workers, relying on documents including duty rosters, log books, gate passes and work records.

BHEL challenged that order.

In the writ proceedings, the High Court found that the material before it did not include a meaningful comparison of the work performed by contract and regular employees; the workers’ claim for regularisation had separately been rejected in 2025.

1. Whether the Labour Commissioner’s order granting equal pay was sustainable when it did not specifically assess whether the contract workers established the required parity in duties and responsibilities with the reference posts.

2. Whether the deficiencies in the Labour Commissioner’s reasoning warranted interference by certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as explained in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148: the claimant bears the burden of proving parity, including functional and qualitative equivalence in duties, responsibilities, work volume, sensitivity and relevant qualifications; similarity of designation or some functional overlap alone is insufficient.

Relying also on State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 321, the Court recognised that the principle is not mechanically applicable and that contract employees’ terms are ordinarily governed by their contracts, while noting that contractual status does not foreclose a claim where the evidence establishes that they actually perform the work of the comparable post.

Under Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, certiorari may correct an error of law, including a finding based on no evidence, but is not an appellate jurisdiction for reassessing the sufficiency of evidence.

The Labour Commissioner referred to numerous documents but did not explain how they proved that the contract workers’ work was equal in quality, responsibility and other relevant respects to that of regular employees.

The purported comparative chart identified workers, designations, departments and assigned work but did not establish how the work was the same; duty rosters, experience certificates, log books and attendance records likewise did not, without further analysis, prove the required parity.

The defect was therefore not merely that the evidence might be insufficient: the order failed to show that the governing legal test had been applied at all.

That absence of reasoned consideration justified certiorari without the High Court itself deciding the factual merits of the workers’ claim.

It remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the applicable legal principles, directing that a fresh order be passed within six months after a certified copy of the judgment is presented.

The writ petition was disposed of; the Court did not determine that the workers were or were not ultimately entitled to equal pay.