Gujarat High Court
C U Shah Medical College And Hospital vs Joint Secretary, Akhil Gujarat General ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 24/10/2024
Pronounced On : 17/02/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7754 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7754 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
C U SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
Versus
JOINT SECRETARY, AKHIL GUJARAT GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. K. M. PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. YOGEN N. PANDYA(5766) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. D.G. SHUKLA(1998), ADVOCATE Assisted by MS. MESHWA BHATT,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CHANDRESH N JANI(7846) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 00:50:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
[1] The present petition challenges the legality, validity and
propriety of award dated 21.01.2022 passed in Reference (I.T.) Case
No.50 of 2013 vide Exhibit-60 passed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal")
under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"). The learned Tribunal has partly allowed
the Reference directing the petitioner to grant demand No.1 to 5, 7
and 9.
[2] The factual matrix which has led to filing of the Reference
resulted into impugned orders are that the Saurashtra Medical
Center Trust was initially registered as a society, under the Societies
Registration Act, 1960 on 27.07.1972 and, thereafter, registered as a
Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust
Act, 1972. The Trust had initially established C. U. Shah T. B.
Hospital in the year 1974. Subsequently, other hospitals for various
specialty were established under the aeigis of C. U. Shah College.
The present petition is filed by C. U. Shah Medical College and
Hospital which has a variety of special free medical facilities under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
its wings. The concerned workmen of the present petitioner were
appointed after the petitioner's medical college came into existence,
through a contract system and are continuing to work regularly form
the year 2000 onwards.
[2.1] The respondents workmen are the Unions (hereinafter referred
to as "the respondent") and they have raised their charter of
demands before the Conciliation Officer under Section 10(1) of the
Act. The conciliation had failed and therefore, the Terms of
Reference was referred for the adjudication to the learned Tribunal.
The Reference came to be numbered as Reference (I.T.) No.50 of
2013. There were total 9 demands raised by the Union. During the
pendency of the dispute, the Labour Commissioner, Gujarat vide its
order dated 29.06.2020 referred further revised demands, wherein
demand Nos. 1 to 4 were kept as it is and demand Nos.5 to 8 were
revised in the pending adjudication.
[2.2] Pursuant to filing of the Reference, the statement of claim
came by the respondent at Exhibit-3 against the statement claim to
be filed by the petitioner which was at Exhibit-13. It was contended
by the petitioner that it is a self-financed private medical college run
by the trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1972.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
The trust activities are on the principles of "no loss - no profit" for
the students of the medical college and patients in the hospitals
being run by it. Both the parties have subsequently led the evidence.
Pursuant to the completion of pleadings as well as the arguments,
the learned Tribunal by way of impugned award directed the
petitioner to pay financial benefits to the members of the respondent
Union from 01.01.2010 onwards. It was the case of the petitioner
that if the financial burden as per the award had to be calculated, it
turned out to be more than Rs.45 lacs per month. The petitioner was
having an excess of expenditure over the income from the financial
year 2001-02 to 2020-21. The losses are met through the collection
of donations over the years. It was, thus, contended by the petitioner
that the award passed by the learned Tribunal would be fatal for the
future existence of the petitioner.
[3] We have heard Mr. K. M. Patel, learned senior advocate with
Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.
D.G.Shukla, learned advocate with Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned
advocate assisted by Ms. Meshwa Bhatt, learned advocate for the
respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Chandresh N. Jani, learned advocate
for the respondent No.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
[4] Mr. K. M. Patel, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
contended that in Terms of Reference, the names as mentioned in the
members of respondent Union would be 48 only. However, pursuant
to the adjudication and revised demands, the scope would be added
qua another set of 221 employees who are the members of the
respondent - union. The learned Tribunal vide order dated
29.06.2020 was not carrying any list of members of respondent No.1.
It is only after the submission of the argument, the Conciliation
Officer had sent a list of the 221 employees of respondent No.1 on
06.09.2021.
[4.1] It was submitted that the petitioner runs the teaching hospital
for academic requirements for the medical students with the core
objectives of "no profit - no loss"services to the poor and needy
people surrounding the area of the Surendranagar District. The
charges for the services provided by the petitioner are much lesser
than any other private hospitals or many of the charges are even 'Nil'
as compared to other hospitals in Surendranagar District. The
patients are also offered 40% discount and other consistent benefits
are offered to the needy people. It was further submitted that
petitioner has a surplus of expenditure over the income from its
inception and when there are losses, the shortfall is met through only
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
donations that the trust has received over the years. Therefore, the
paying capacity, financial burden and industry-cum-region in the
area where the petitioner is situated are the prime requirements to
adjudicate the wage revision, wage structure and other financial
benefits. It was further submitted that the award suffers from the
error of jurisdiction, inasmuch as, by examining the financial
capacity and future burden, the award is required to be quashed and
set aside.
[4.2] Mr. Patel, learned senior advocate has also submitted that the
learned Tribunal has erred, inasmuch as, the Terms of Reference has
categorically mentioned the date of entitlement of the benefits from
01.01.2012. Whereas the learned Tribunal has granted the said
benefits with retrospective effect from 01.01.2010, which is without
application of mind and would tantamount to causing huge financial
burden to the petitioner. The respondent has revised its demands at
the stage of the proceedings in the year 2020 by giving an
application for revision of demands. Therefore, the learned Tribunal
could not have passed award pertaining revised demand to respondent -
union with effect from 01.01.2010. It was further submitted that no relief
could have been granted to 221 members of respondent since their names
are not part of the revised terms of the reference.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
[4.3] Mr. Patel, learned senior advocate has further submitted that
the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent
have asked for wage revision and the same is allowed by the learned
Tribunal considering the members of the respondent as Class-III and
Class-IV employees without verifying the fact that the members of
unions are not possessing requisite qualifications for appointment to
the posts. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work, therefore, does
not apply in the abstract. For invoking the principle, it has to be
established and proved that the nature of the work is same
qualitatively and quantitatively. It was further argued that while
granting the wage revision and pay grade, it was the prominent duty
of the learned Tribunal to consider the principles of industry-cum-
region, paying capacity and the financial burden which can be borne
by the petitioner against the demands. These principles have been
completely overlooked by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the
dispute and awarding the benefits. The acceptance of the demands,
particularly demand No.3, therefore, is erroneous and contrary to the
facts on record.
[4.4] It was further submitted by Mr. Patel, learned senior advocate
that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
members of the respondent union were initially appointed by the
contractor to perform their duties and only after 2008 the members
of the union came on a muster roll of the petitioner as a daily wager.
[5] Per contra, Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate assisted by Ms.
Meshwa Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has
submitted that there is no need to interfere with the impugned
award, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been exploited the members
of the respondent Union by treating them daily wagers for the
purpose of denying them the benefits of permanency and other
monetary benefits. The workmen with the respondent union have
been working continuously for more than 20 years. Earlier, they
were shown as contractor's workmen through sham and bogus
contracts which were only paper arrangements. The contractor
admittedly, left in 2008 and, thereafter, the concerned workmen
have been directly employed by the petitioner. The action of the
petitioner in treating the workmen as daily wagers for such a long
period amounts to unfair labour practice as per item 10 of Schedule-
V read with Section 25T of the Act.
[5.1] Mr. Shukla, learned advocate has further submitted that the
members of the respondent union are doing similar work as that of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
permanent workmen but they are being deprived of the benefits of
permanency and monetary benefits available to other permanent
workmen. They are employed as Helper, Sweeper, Ward Boy etc. but
they are treated as Class-IV employees and the Nursing / Clerical and
Technical Staff are treated as Class-III employees. It was further
submitted that similar kind of work is performed by permanent
workmen. In the case of permanent workmen, the designation is
stated in the pay-slip but they are not treated as Class-IV or Class-III
employees. It is further submitted that 40 permanent workmen
doing the work of Class-IV employees or similarly situated workmen
of the respondent union are being paid Rs.46,130/- per month as
wages in June, 2024. Whereas for the same kind of work, the
workmen of the respondent union are being paid Rs.16,000/- per
month only. Similarly, the permanent Nursing Staff are paid
Rs.75,744/- per month, whereas similarly situated workmen working
as Nursing Staff in the respondent union are being paid Rs.17,000/-
per month in August, 2024. During the last two years, there has
been no increase in wages paid to 52 concerned workmen of the
respondent union. Besides, they have denied benefits like leave,
bonus, allowances etc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
[5.2] Mr. Shukla, learned advocate has further submitted that the
respondent has produced pay-slip of permanent workmen to show
the injustice being done to the workmen of the respondent union. It
was further submitted that the petitioner is also running Self-finance
Medical Colleges and earning huge income. Therefore, when there is
huge income earned by the petitioner and there is total
discrimination between similar kind of work performed by workmen
of the respondent union and permanent workmen, the anomaly qua
the pay-scale needs to be removed. It was further submitted that the
petitioner was a grant-in-aid institution and the petitioner itself
voluntarily stopped taking grant from the State Government.
Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has sufficient income and
assets to function as a non-grant-in-aid institution and it is earning
more income as a Self-financed Institution. Therefore, it becomes
apparent to remove the anomaly amongst the pay-scales of similar
situated employees and further grant benefits i.e. due to the
workmen of respondent union.
[5.3] Mr. Shukla, learned advocate has further submitted that high
handedness of the petitioner towards the workmen of respondent
union who are working with the petitioner for more than 20 years is
nothing but victimization by adopting unfair labour practices. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
workmen are being victimized as they have joined the respondent
union and the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award in
their favour. There is continuous mental harassment caused to the
concerned workmen due to the unfair labour practices adopted by
the petitioner, which is to be deprecated. Therefore, it was prayed
by Mr. Shukla, learned advocate that the petitioner hospital is not
entitled to any relief as prayed or otherwise. In the wake of such
submission, Mr. Shukla, learned advocate has prayed to dismiss the
present petition.
[6] We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties
and perused the material on record. The first point would be with
regard to whether the payment of wage as per minimum wages raise
would be an adequate component to the petitioners. The employer in
wage revision matters has taken a standard defense that they are
paying minimum wages to the employees engaged by them as
contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act. Coming to the
concept, the bare minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 is with the idea that no industry or employer can pay its
employee wages lesser than the minimum wage fixed under the Act.
However, the minimum Wages Act, 1948 does not deal with the
concept of "fair wages" or "living wages" as promised under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
Constitution of India, which manifests that each person has a right to
decent standard of living by earning wages which not only meet the
requirement of food, clothing and shelter, but education of children,
medical requirement, minimum recreational expenses, including
festivities / ceremonies, provision for old age and marriage for his
children. These are the bare minimum requirements of a family in
India, which can aspire to have a decent standard of living.
[7] In the instant case, the date of joining of the workmen of the
respondent union in the year 2000 as a contractual employee and,
thereafter, in the year 2008 as direct employees of the petitioner.
Resultantly, the workmen of the respondent union are working with
the petitioner institution for almost more than 20 years. The only
point of argument canvassed by Mr. K. M. Patel, learned senior
counsel is that there would be a huge financial burden upon the
employer with the acceptance of the demand made by the
respondent union. However, before going into that aspect a
primarily bone of contention would be the principles of equal for
equal work. It has been demonstrated by the respondent union that
two sets of employees doing the same kind of work are being given
different wages, one set of employees are given normal wages,
whereas the other set for workmen of the respondent union are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
being given minimum wages. Therefore, if the basic salary paid by
the institution who any permanent Class-III or Class-IV employee is
higher than the similarly situated Class-III or Class-IV employees,
then there is defiantly breach of principles of equal wages for equal
work. Therefore, it is an elementary proposition of law that both the
workmen doing same kind of work and were permanent employees of
the institution should get equal pay. The contention taken by Mr. K.
M. Patel, learned senior counsel with regard to the financial aspect
of the institution would be not a valid contention. There is no denial
to the fact that there is huge amount of revenue received by the
institution. There is no denial to the fact that from the same huge set
of revenue different pay-scales are being given to two different
permanent sets of employees. Therefore, there cannot be a biasness
viz-a-viz applicability of financial constraint for one set of employee
and non-applicability of financial constraint for other set of
employees. Therefore, the aspect of financial burden is misleading at
the very first inspection.
[8] Taking note of the above, we may take note of the benefits
accorded by the Tribunal to the workmen while allowing the
reference, partly, which are as follows:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
"(1) As per demand No.1 it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to provide
appointment letter and identity card to the concerned
workmen who are the members of the respondent
No.1 Union.
(2) As per demand No.2 it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to pay the bonus of
a sum of Rs.1500/- to class III employees and
Rs.2000/ to the class IV employees of respondent
No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.2010;
(3) As per demand No.3 it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to pay wage grade
and benefits at par with the permanent employees of
the petitioner w.e.f 01.10.2010 to the members of
Respondent-1 Union.
(4) As per demand No.4 it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal Demand No.4
pertains to permanent employees' grade pay and all
the service benefits which are included in the benefits
of permanency demand are partly allowed.
(5) As per demand No.5 (A) it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to pay financial
assistance of up to Rs.50,000/- for serious illness and
operation of the employees of Class III and IV of both
the respondents Union.
(6) As per demand No.5 (B) it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to pay Rs.750/-
towards House Rent Allowance from 01.01.2010 to
the employees of Class III and IV of the respondents
Union.
(7) As per demand No.5(C) it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to pay actual
educational expenses for those members of the
Respondent No.-1 Union who are entitled to these
benefits excluding daughter.
(8) As per demand No.5 (D) it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to pay Rs.250/-
monthly conveyance allowance from 01.01.2010 to
the employees of Class III and IV of respondent No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
(9) As per demand No.7(A) to (D) it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal to give a washing
allowance of Rs.150/- to the employees of
respondents w.e.f. 01.01.2010 as per demand 7(C) is
granted to both the Union whereas the demand of
7(A), (B), and (D) are granted to the members of the
respondent NO.- 1 Union only.
(10) As per demand No.9 it is directed to the
petitioner by the learned Tribunal, above mentioned
demands, No. 1 to 8 are allowed and direction issued
to the petitioner by ordered to comply within 30 days
from the date of award.
(11) It is directed to the petitioner by the
learned Tribunal to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000 as a
cost of union expenditure."
[9] The aforesaid benefits particularly demand No.3 have been
granted to the workmen with effect from the date of the judgment,
i.e, 01.01.2010 and the direction is that all the above benefits be
accorded to the workmen within 30 days of the passing of the
judgment / award.
[10] We may record that at the time of issuance of Notice, vide
order dated 21.04.2022, it was directed that the petitioner shall pay
a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month to Class-IV employee commencing
from 01.5.2022 and Rs.17,000/- per month to Class-III employee
commencing from 1.5.2022 till further orders and it was further
directed that the judgment and award dated 21.1.2022 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.50 of 2013 shall stand stayed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
[11] We may note that the concept of wage structure in the industry
has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the Workmen
Represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. and
another, (1992) 1 SCC 290, wherein the wage structure prevalent
in the industry has been divided into three categories in a broad
manner. The basic "minimum wage" which provides bare subsistence
and is at poverty line level, a little above is the "fair wage" and finally
the "living wage" which comes at a comfort level. It was noted by the
Apex Court therein that though it is not possible to demarcate these
levels of wage structure with any precision, however, well accepted
norms, which broadly distinguish one category of pay structure from
another, can be seen in the Fair Wages Committee report published
by the Government of India Ministry of Labour in the year 1949,
which defines the "living wage" as under:-
"8............xxx....xxx....xxx..............xxxx....
"the living wage should enable the male
earner to provide for himself and his family
not merely the bare essentials of food,
clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal
comfort including education for the children,
protection against ill-health, requirements of
essential social needs, and a measure of
insurance against the more important
misfortunes including old age."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
[12] The wage structure promising descent standard of life to the
workers is still a far cry. The employers in wage revision matters
take a standard defense that they are paying minimum wages to the
employees engaged by them as contemplated under the Minimum
Wages Act. The concept of minimum wages has been given a
statutory backing by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, with the
statement that no industry has a right to exist unless it is able to pay
its workmen at least "a bare minimum wage". The Act provides for
fixation of minimum rate of wages or revision by the appropriate
Government in respect of scheduled employments. The bare
minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is with the
idea that no industry or employer can pay its employee wages lesser
than the minimum wage fixed under the Act. However, the minimum
Wages Act, 1948 does not deal with the concept of "fair wages" or
"living wages" promised under the Constitution, which manifests that
each person has a right to decent standard of living by earning
wages which not only meet the requirement of food, clothing and
shelter, but education of children, medical requirement, minimum
recreational expenses, including festivities/ceremonies, provision for
old age and marriage for his children. These are the bare minimum
requirements of a family unit in India, which is still at the poverty
line level, aspiring to have a decent standard of living where the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
bread earner may be able to meet the bare minimum needs of the
family comprising of, women, children, adolescents and old age
parents.
[13] The provision for wage revision under the labour laws has,
thus, been incorporated so as to enable the Labour and Industrial
Tribunal to fix a fair wage structure for the employees engaged in an
industry, falling within their jurisdiction.
[14] The Apex Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs.
D.T.C Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Supp(1) SCC
600, has laid great emphasis on the concept of fair wages
intertwined with the Right to life. Paragraphs No."231" and
"232" (at pages 716 and 717) of the said decision are quoted
hereinunder:
"231. The employment under the public
undertakings is a public employment and a
public property. It is not only the undertakings
but also the society which has a stake in their
proper and efficient working. Both discipline
and devotion are necessary for efficiency. To
ensure both, the service conditions of those who
work for them must be encouraging, certain and
secured, and not vague and whimsical. With
capricious service conditions, both discipline
and devotion are endangered, and efficiency is
impaired.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
232. The right to life includes right to
livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore
cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in
authority. The employment is not a bounty from
them nor can its survival be at their mercy.
Income is the foundation of many fundamental
rights and when work is the sole source of
income, the right to work becomes as much
fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford
to be consigned to the limbo of undefined
premises and uncertain applications. That will
be a mockery of them."
[15] The question of revision of wages of workmen was examined by
the Constitution Bench in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd.(supra),
wherein the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down the
principles for fixation of rates of wages as under: (AIR P.605,
paragraph No.73)
"19............The question of revision of wages of
workmen was examined by a Constitution Bench
in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd.v. Union of
India[AIR 1958 SC 578] having regard to the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the
Minimum Wages Act and the following
principles for fixation of rates of wages were
laid down : (AIR p. 605, para 73)
"(1) that in the fixation of rates of wages
which include within its compass the
fixation of scales of wages also, the
capacity of the industry to pay is one of the
essential circumstances to be taken into
consideration except in cases of bare
subsistence or minimum wage where the
employer is bound to pay the same
irrespective of such capacity;
(2) that the capacity of the industry to pay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
is to be considered on an industry-cum-
region basis after taking a fair cross-section
of the industry; and
(3) that the proper measure for gauging the
capacity of the industry to pay should take
into account the elasticity of demand for
the product, the possibility of tightening up
the organisation so that the industry could
pay higher wages without difficulty and the
possibility of increase in the efficiency of
the lowest-paid workers resulting in
increase in production considered in
conjunction with the elasticity of demand
for the product -- no doubt against the
ultimate background that the burden of the
increased rate should not be such as to
drive the employer out of business."
(emphasis supplied)
[16] Apart from the issue of wage revision, one aspect which needs
consideration is 'equal work for equal pay'. It is not in dispute that
the members of the respondent Union are performing the same
duties as are discharged by the permanent employees of the
petitioner. The principle of 'equal work for equal pay' expounded
through various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court would also be
applicable to the facts of the present case. An employee engaged for
the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. It is not in dispute that the
members of the respondent Union are doing the same duties as other
permanent employees who are given a different pay-scale. Such an
action besides being demeaning strikes at the very foundation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
human dignity. Any workman who is compelled to work at a lesser
wage does not do so voluntarily. He/ she does so to provide food and
shelter to his / her family at the cost of his/ her self-respect/ dignity.
Any act of paying lesser wages as compared to any similarly situated
workman constitute an act of exploitation and is a result of slave
mindset. Such oppressive action are deprecated through many
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly State of
Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others, reported in 2017
(1) SCC 148. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity in the
observations by the learned Tribunal in giving the same Grade-pay of
Class-III and Class-IV permanent employees to the members of the
respondent Union.
[17] In view of the above discussion, in light of the findings
returned by the Tribunal, the award of increase in wages cannot be
said to suffer from any error of law and in no case can be said to be
excessive so as to cause any financial burden on the employer namely
the petitioner society. However, there is no justification by the
learned Tribunal for giving the benefit from 1.1.2010. The terms of
reference are clearly from 1.1.2012. Therefore, the benefit granted
to the respondent is modified only to the extent of applicability of the
date which is from 1.1.2012.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
[18] As regards the conveyance allowance and the other benefits
such as education expenses, washing allowance, HRA, bonus etc., we
do not find any good ground to interfere.
[19] In view of the above discussion, we reached at the conclusion
that the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
However, the date for grant of benefit is modified from 1.1.2010 to
1.1.2012 for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. No order as to
costs. All connected applications, accordingly, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.)
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
Further Order
When the judgment is pronounced, the learned senior counsel
Mr. K. M. Patel with Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned advocate for the
petitioner has requested to stay of the order. For the reasons
mentioned hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to accept the
request and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.)
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
