This court dismissed a writ petition seeking equal pay for equal work. The petitioner, an electrician paid on a lower scale, claimed parity with another electrician paid a higher scale for doing the same job. The court held that the petitioner applied for a specific post requiring different qualifications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.6094 of 1992
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6094 of 1992. Date of decision : 2nd July, 2013.
Rajinder Kumar Saini
...... Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
*******
Present : Ms. Ishrat Kaur Pannu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate, for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, for the respondent.
*******
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed claiming equal pay for equal work. The respondent-Corporation published an advertisement on 23rd October, 1989 inviting applications for various posts including the post of Electrician requiring essential qualification of diploma from the I.T.I. in the relevant trade with 3 years experience. The petitioner applied in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent-Corporation and was appointed as
CWP No.6094 of 1992 -:2:-
an Electrician in the pay scale of 950-1500. Earlier to the post of Electrician similar post was advertise vide advertisement dated 1<sup>st</sup> July, 1988 in the pay scale of 670-1080 requiring essential qualification of Diploma in I.T.I. in Electrician Trade but the experience prescribed was three years experience in Quality Marking Centre / Quality Control in reputed organization. One Parmod Kumar was selected as an Electrician in response to this advertisement. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as an Electrician in Hotel Shivalik View whereas the said Parmod Kumar was appointed as an electrician in Hotel Mount View and both the hotels are owned and managed by the respondent-Corporation, which is controlled and owned by the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner when appointed as an Electrician was being paid his salary in the pay scale of 950-1500 and the said Parmod Kumar was being paid his salary in the pay scale of 1400-2300. Designation of petitioner as well as Parmod Kumar was Electrician and they were doing the same job and were performing the same duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no basis for the Corporation to pay the petitioner any lesser pay scale than the other electrician. This action of the respondent-Corporation was in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the principle of equal pay for equal work has assumed place of fundamental right. Therefore, he seeks parity with the said Parmod Kumar. As per the advertisement pursuant to which Parmod Kumar was appointed the post advertised was Quality Marking Supervisor (Electrical) with essential qualification of 3 years diploma in Electrical Engineering and 5 years experience in Quality Marking Centre / Quality Control.
CWP No.6094 of 1992 -:3:-
The gravamen of the case of the petitioner is that they were both actually working as Electricians and hence he was entitled to parity of pay. I am afraid the argument does not hold water. The petitioner admittedly applied for a different post with different qualifications.
In the circumstances, petition is dismissed.
2nd July, 2013 Gaurav Sorot
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an employee can claim equal pay for equal work when he applied for a post with different qualifications compared to another employee who received higher pay for a similar designation.
Rajinder Kumar Saini
Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
