Pay parity under "equal pay for equal work" cannot be claimed for non-existent posts.

The respondent was initially engaged by the petitioner on a temporary basis with the designation of "Caretaker" from 01.12.2000 to 14.12.2004 at a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month

On 13.01.2005, he was offered and accepted a regular appointment to the post of "Chowkidar" in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200

Nearly ten years later, the respondent raised an industrial dispute claiming he was entitled to the higher pay scale of a Caretaker (Rs. 3050-4590) because his ID card and salary slips continued to use that designation

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) passed an Award on 26.06.2018 in favor of the respondent, granting him the Caretaker pay scale based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work"

The petitioner challenged this Award via the present writ petition.

Whether the respondent was entitled to receive the regular pay scale of a "Caretaker" (Rs. 3050-4590) despite the non-existence of such a sanctioned post in the petitioner organization?

Whether the principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be invoked to grant a pay scale for a post that does not exist in the employer's hierarchy?

The Court applied the principles governing "equal pay for equal work" as delineated in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., which established that the onus of proof regarding parity of duties lies on the claimant and that placement in a regular pay scale generally requires a regular appointment to a sanctioned post

It further relied on Tripura State Cooperative Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee & Ors., holding that the principle cannot be applied if the specific post does not exist in the organization

Finally, it applied U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. B.K. Tiwari, which dictates that an employee who accepts an appointment letter with specific terms and conditions cannot subsequently claim a different pay scale or designation contrary to those terms

The Court observed that while the respondent’s salary slips and ID card mentioned "Caretaker," his formal regularization letter dated 13.01.2005 explicitly appointed him as a "Chowkidar" in a specific pay scale, which he accepted without protest

Crucially, the respondent admitted during cross-examination before the Tribunal that there was no sanctioned post of "Caretaker" within the Indian Red Cross Society

The Court reasoned that the CGIT erred by applying the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" in a vacuum; for the doctrine to apply, there must be a "reference post" in the same hierarchy with matching duties and a higher scale

Since the post of Caretaker did not exist, the petitioner could not be directed to pay a scale attached to a non-existent position

The Court also noted the long delay of ten years in raising the dispute and the fact that the respondent had consistently identified as a Chowkidar for administrative purposes, such as in a 2007 Certificate of Residence

The Court held that a workman cannot be granted the pay scale of a post that does not exist in the employer's establishment, and the mere erroneous mention of a designation on an ID card or salary slip does not supersede the specific terms of a signed appointment letter

The respondent was found not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590