Management Of Delhi Transport ... vs Sukhbir Singh
2010 Latest Caselaw 5871 Del

1
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+       LPA 1153/2005


MANAGEMENT OF DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION            ..... Appellant
                Through: Mr. Abhay N. Das, Advocate.

                        versus

SUKHBIR SINGH                                      ..... Respondent
                                 Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate.


%                                    Date of Decision : 23th December, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.


                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM No. 15423/2009

1. By this application, the respondent-applicant seeks direction to

the appellant to pay him wages/salary as being paid to other similarly

situated employees.

2. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present

appeal, the respondent-applicant has been reinstated in service as

Conductor by the appellant-DTC on 09th March, 2009. However, the

grievance of the respondent-applicant is that he is still being paid wages

as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not the

salary being paid to other Conductors who are performing similar duties

for appellant-DTC.

3. Mr. Abhay N. Das, learned counsel for the appellant-DTC has

submitted that the appellant-DTC is entitled in law to pay wages under

Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act even though the

respondent-applicant is performing the job of a Conductor--who is

being paid much more. In this connection Mr. Abhay N. Das, learned

counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court

in A.P. Saksena vs. Union of India& Ors. AIR 1968 SC 754.

4. However, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment is of

no assistance to the appellant-DTC as the said judgment has been

rendered prior to the introduction of Section 17-B in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in our view, the principle of equal work for

equal pay is clearly attracted to the present case.

5. In State of Haryana Vs.Charanjit Singh, AIR 2006 sc 161, the

Apex Court has held that for application of said principle, the quality of

work is the test and the status of the workman is immaterial. In fact,

there can be no difference in the quality of work of the respondent and

other conductors. Consequently, the application is allowed and the

appellant-DTC is directed to make payment of the outstanding

differential wages within a period of eight weeks from today. The

appellant-DTC is also directed to pay to the respondent-applicant in

future monthly salary equivalent to those who are performing the job of

a Conductor. The application is accordingly, disposed of.

LPA 1153/2005

List the matter for further hearing on 10th March, 2011.

The matter is released from part heard.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 23, 2010 js