Contractual employees cannot claim pay parity where duties are materially distinct from those of permanent employees.

The Appellant, a Trade Union, filed an application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, seeking pay parity for 64 contractual workmen (technicians) deployed by Respondent No. 2 (AMC contractor) to Respondent No. 1 (MTNL)

The Appellant argued that these workmen performed duties identical to MTNL’s permanent "Phone Mechanics"

On 12.03.2018, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) issued an Award granting the pay scale of ₹12500–₹27170 to the contractual workmen

Respondent No. 1 challenged this via a Writ Petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed on 27.02.2024, setting aside the Award on the grounds that the duties were distinct

The Appellant subsequently filed this Letters Patent Appeal

1. Whether the nature of duties performed by the contractual workmen was identical or similar to those of the permanent employees of the principal employer to warrant the application of the "equal pay for equal work" principle

2. Whether the contractual arrangement between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was a sham intended to deny lawful wages to the workmen

The Court applied Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, which mandates pay parity for contract labour performing the same or similar kind of work as direct employees

It considered the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as interpreted in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017), noting that while the principle extends to contractual employees, it requires the establishment of identity in eligibility, nature of duties, and responsibilities

furthermore, the court emphasized that the doctrine cannot be invoked unless there is a "complete identity" between the two posts

The Court compared the "Scope of Services" in the tender document with the duties of permanent employees. It found that permanent employees functioned as linemen, wiremen, and cable splicers, whereas contractual workmen were restricted to "carrying out electrical, mechanical and technical maintenance services at cell sites"

The Court observed that MTNL had no permanent employees deployed for tower maintenance, thus precluding a legitimate comparison

The Court further reasoned that granting parity to contract labour—who are selected at the contractor's discretion without a prescribed public recruitment mechanism—would improperly confer legitimacy on an unregulated selection process

Finally, the Court held that the Appellant failed to provide evidence that the contract was a "sham" or "bogus" arrangement, noting the contract was a genuine principal-to-principal agreement

It held that the contractual workmen were not entitled to pay parity because their duties were materially different from those of the permanent employees.

The Court concluded that "equal pay cannot be granted for unequal work" and that the Appellant failed to prove the contractual arrangement was a sham. No order as to costs was made.