Bombay High Court
Prakash Shankar Mahale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 January, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1025 WRIT PETITION NO.6231 OF 2020
AMBAJI CHATRSING PAWARA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6235/2020
DHANRAJ SHIVAJI SONWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6236/2020
PRAKASH SHANKAR MAHALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .6233/2020
VIJAY LAXMAN GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6232/2020
KAKDYA DAMNYA RAUT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6234/2020
MILIND GOPICHAND T AYADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6237/2020
KISHOR GOPAL KOLTE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
1030 WRIT PETITION NO.6759 OF 2020
KAILAS BHIKANRAO TAYADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
Page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 16:19:20 :::
1025
1031 WRIT PETITION NO.6762 OF 2020
BALAJI SHIVAJI KAMBLE AND THERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
1032 WRIT PETITION NO.6763 OF 2020
YUSUF IBRAHIM SAYYED AND OHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kulkarni Pramod A.
AGP for Respondents State: Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5 : Mrs. v. S. Chaudhari
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 13th January, 2021
ORDER:
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to amend and
claim relief on the basis of equal pay for equal work. Leave granted.
2. The petitioners in these petitions seek relief of regularization and
equal wages for equal work.
3. As far as the relief of regularization is concerned, reliance is placed
on the order passed by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.
10260/2019 dated 03.09.2019. The Division Bench at the principal seat, in
the said matter, passed following order:
"In the light of the fact that the concerned persons are looking
into the grievance of the petitioners, met and made
appropriate recommendations and no final decision is taken as
yet, this writ petition can be disposed and is accordingly
disposed of by keeping open all the contentions and to be
raised in the event the grievances of the petitioners still
survive."
4. As far as grievance of the petitioners of equal pay for equal work
is concerned, the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated
08.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench at Principal Seat in Writ Petition
St. No. 92250/2020 with connected writ petitions and the judgment and
order of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2247/2014, dated
20th November, 2019. The Division Bench at the Principal Seat, relying
upon the judgment of Division Bench of Nagpur Bench, passed the
following order on 08.12.2020 in Writ Petition St. No. 92250/2020 with
connected writ petitions.
"5. This Court, in the judgment relied on behalf of the petitioners, in the
matter of Dhiraj S. Wankhede (supra) has held:
"9. The other relief claimed by the petitioners is about pay
parity with the regular drivers in Class-III category. In this
regard the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab and others...Versus...Jagjit Singh
and others , reported in (2017 )1 SCC 148. 10. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that no artificial parameters can be
devised to deny the fruits of labour when an employee
performs the same work as another employee. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has further held that no artificial distinction can
be made between such two employees, whereby one is given
higher salary and another is paid lower salary. Relevant
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court appearing in
paragraph no.58 of the judgment are reproduced as below :-
"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine
artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee
engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another
who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly
not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being
demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity.
Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not
do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to
his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the
cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he
knows that his dependents would surfer immensely, if he
does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less
wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an
act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary
subjugation."
11. It is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
when one employee discharges/performs same work as
another employee, there cannot be any distinction between the
two employees so far as the application of the pay scale to
both of them is concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further
held that all the temporary employees who are performing
similar work as the regular employees would be entitled to
draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest
grade, in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees
holding the same post. This relief would also have to be
granted to all the petitioners as there is no dispute that their
work is similar to the work of the regular drivers."
6. The fact that the petitioners in above referred judgment
were contractual employees is not disputed. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the issue involved in all these
petitions is covered by view taken by this Court in its
judgment dated 20.11.2019 in above referred writ petition.
Accordingly, the following order is passed.
a. The petitioners be paid wages at the minimum of the
pay scale at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale
extended to the regular employees holding the same
post with effect from the date of the petition.
b. The respondent No.5 is directed to comply with this
order within six months from today.
c. No order as to costs."
5. In view of the consistent view taken at the Principal Seat and
at Nagpur Bench, we follow the same course and pass following order:
ORDER
(a) The petitioners be paid wages at the minimum of the pay scale at the
lowest grade, in the regular pay scale extended to the regular
employees holding the same post with effect from the date of the
petition.
(b) The respondent No.5 is directed to comply with this order within six
months from today.
6. With the aforesaid observation and directions, writ petitions are
disposed of. No costs.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
JPC
