Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 26-10-2016 in case of petitioner name State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors.
| |

Equal Pay for Equal Work: Supreme Court Upholds Wage Parity for Temporary Employees

Updated on

The landmark case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. addressed the long-standing issue of wage disparity between temporary and regular employees in government service. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and ruled that temporary employees, including daily-wage workers, contractual staff, and ad-hoc appointees, are entitled to receive wages at the minimum of the regular pay scale of their counterparts.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when several daily-wage employees working in different departments of the Punjab government filed petitions seeking pay parity with regular employees. These employees, who were engaged in various roles such as Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, and Chowkidars, argued that they performed identical duties as their regular counterparts but received significantly lower wages.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a series of judgments, ruled in favor of the employees and directed the state government to pay them wages equivalent to those drawn by regular employees holding the same posts. The state government challenged these rulings before the Supreme Court, leading to this landmark judgment.

Key Legal Questions

The case presented critical legal questions:

  • Can temporary employees claim equal pay for equal work under Article 14 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution?
  • Does the classification of employees based on their mode of appointment justify wage disparity?
  • Is the concept of equal pay for equal work applicable only to employees in permanent positions?

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments by the Petitioners (Temporary Employees)

  • The temporary employees contended that they were performing the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees.
  • The classification of employees as temporary or permanent does not alter the nature of the work performed.
  • Denial of equal wages was a violation of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 39(d) (directive principle ensuring equal pay for equal work).

Arguments by the State of Punjab

  • The state government argued that regular employees were recruited through a rigorous selection process, while temporary employees were engaged without competitive selection.
  • Regular employees were subject to transfer, disciplinary actions, and other conditions not applicable to temporary employees.
  • The financial burden of extending equal pay to temporary employees would be immense.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined several precedents on the issue of equal pay for equal work. It reiterated that while the right to equal pay is not an abstract concept, it must be grounded in the nature and quality of the work performed.

The Court made several key observations:

  • Temporary employees cannot be discriminated against solely based on their mode of appointment if they discharge the same duties as regular employees.
  • Classifying employees on the basis of permanence is arbitrary if the work performed is identical.
  • The principle of equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right under Article 14.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the temporary employees and held:

  • All temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to their regular counterparts.
  • Temporary employees are not entitled to allowances and other benefits granted to regular employees.
  • Past judgments by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which granted wage parity, were upheld.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching implications for temporary employees across India:

  • Wage Parity: Government departments and public sector organizations must ensure that temporary employees receive wages at the minimum of the pay scale for their respective positions.
  • Employment Rights: The ruling strengthens the rights of temporary employees, reinforcing that they cannot be exploited merely due to the nature of their appointment.
  • Financial Burden on Governments: While the judgment imposes an additional financial responsibility on state governments, it ensures that employees are not underpaid for performing identical work.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. is a historic ruling that upholds the dignity of labor and ensures that temporary employees are not denied their rightful wages. By affirming the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work,’ the Court has reinforced constitutional values and the rights of workers across India.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Punjab & Or vs Jagjit Singh & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-10-2016.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by Jagdish Singh Khehar
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts