[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd vs Sri S G Mahadevappa on 26 March, 2026
-1-
WP No. 53042 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 53042 OF 2018 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,
N.H.4, T BEGUR, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER-HR SRI MANJUNATH R.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH MAHALE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MS MAITREYI B KANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI S G MAHADEVAPPA,
EMP. 1155, PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,
NELAMANGALA, T.BEGUR- 560 086,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
ENGINEERING AND GENERAL WORKERS
UNION GHATE BHAVANA,
Digitally GAYATHRI DEVI PARK EXTENSION,
signed by C VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 008.
HONNUR
SAB ...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI M NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF
KARNATAKA AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 27.1.2018 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL INDUSTRAIL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
A.I.D.NO.10/2013 AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS W.P.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09TH FEBRUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-Company has assailed the award dated
27.01.2018 in A.I.D. No.10/2023 passed by the Additional
Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, which has directed the Company
to pay wages to the respondent-workman, on par with
C.G.Girish another employee of the petitioner-Company.
2. The respondent-employee had raised a dispute
(through Union) claiming parity in the wages on the premise
that he is senior to C.G.Girish.
3. The respondent-employee was appointed as a
trainee in the Company on 27.12.2006, whereas C.G.Girish was
appointed on 24.06.2008. Respondent should have been paid
higher wages than C.G.Girish and if not, at least wages on par
with C.G.Girish is the contention.
4. The Company disputed the claim and urged that
C.G.Girish and the respondent cannot be equated and justified
disparity in wages paid.
5. The Tribunal held that the wages of Rs.6,920/- per
month paid to the respondent violates the equal wages for
equal work doctrine and directed Company to pay same wages
(Rs.9,351/- pay paid to C.G. Girish).
6. The Tribunal, recorded the evidence of both sides,
came to the conclusion that in view of disparity in the wages
paid to respondent and C.G.Girish, held that the respondent is
entitled to equal wages as C.G.Girish and directed the
petitioner to pay wages on par with C.G.Girish.
7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the
petitioner-Company is before this Court.
8. Learned Senior Counsel urged that, C.G.Girish had
a prior experience when he was appointed by the petitioner-
Company on 24.06.2008. C.G.Girish on successful completion
of probation on 27.02.2009, was made permanent employee.
Whereas the respondent was initially appointed as trainee on
27.12.2006 and was on probation from 01.02.2009 and was
made permanent employee in the on 18.02.2011.
9. It is urged that Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous
premise that respondent is entitled to equal wages, on par with
C.G.Girish because both of them have same designation
'associate' though there is no evidence on record to show that
the work entrusted to respondent and C.G.Girish are one and
the same.
10. Thus it is urged that one cannot conclude that both
respondent and C.G.Girish are on par with each other when it
comes to experience and the necessary skill.
11. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention
place reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir in Jagdish Kumar & Ors. vs State of Jammu and
Kashmir1. It is also urged that the doctrine of equal pay would
apply only in a situation when the work and responsibilities
entrusted to the employees are equal. Here, the work entrusted
to C.G.Girish is different from the work entrusted to the
respondent and C.G.Girish was in charge of the electrical work
as he is an electrician by qualification and he discharged more
responsible function than the respondent and these aspects
have not been considered by the Tribunal.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
workman would urge that the Company cannot raise the
contention relating to difference in work and responsibility
without producing any records. No records are produced by the
2024 SCC Online J & K 179
Company to show that the respondent and C.G.Girish were
entrusted with different works despite carrying a same
designation, warranting different wages.
13. It is also urged that under the wage settlement
applicable the employees were classified into different
categories, namely Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, and Grade 4.
And the respondent and C.G.Girish are in the same Grade and
both of them were designated as associate and that being the
position, the Tribunal has held that respondent is entitled to
equal wages on par with C.G.Girish.
14. The wage settlement arrived at between the
petitioner-Company and the Union was not produced before the
Tribunal and that being the position the Tribunal is justified in
holding that the respondent has made out a case for a direction
to pay equal wages on par with C.G.Girish.
15. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
16. The Tribunal has held that the respondent is
entitled to wages on par with C.G.Girish on the premise that
both of them are permanent employees and have the same
designation. It is relevant to notice that the settlement relating
to payment of wages is not produced before the Tribunal. The
said document is produced before this Court as the Court
directed the Company to produce the said document.
17. The Court has perused the said settlement for the
period between 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2011. Said settlement,
provides for payment of basic wages, dearness allowance,
house rent allowance, and conveyance allowance. Classification
of workmen into four categories, namely Grade 1, Grade 2,
Grade 3 and Grade 4 is also noticed from the said settlement.
18. It is not forthcoming from the said settlement as to
whether the Company is enabled to pay different wages for the
workmen falling under the same grade based on nature of
work. It is also not forthcoming as to whether there can be a
difference in wages based on date of confirmation of probation,
though the workmen are falling under the same category or
grade and when the workmen are having the same designation.
19. Apart from making an assertion that the nature of
duties discharged by the respondent and C.G.Girish were
different, the Company has not placed any cogent evidence to
substantiate the said contention. No job description, duty chart,
or contemporaneous records have been produced to
demonstrate that C.G.Girish was discharging functions of a
higher responsibility to justify higher wages in comparision with
respondent.
20. On the contrary, the admitted position that both the
respondent and C.G.Girish were placed in the same grade and
carried the same designation assumes significance. In the
absence of any material to show a classification within the
same grade, the presumption that similarly placed employees
are entitled to similar wages cannot be lightly displaced.
21. The plea of prior experience of C.G.Girish or earlier
confirmation, by itself, would not be sufficient to sustain a
disparity in wages, particularly when the governing settlement
does not expressly provide for such differentiation.
22. It is well settled that the principle of equal pay for
equal work is not to be applied in a mechanical manner;
however, where the employer fails to demonstrate any
intelligible differentia in the nature of duties, responsibilities, or
qualifications, a disparity in wages would be arbitrary and
unsustainable.
23. In Jagdish Kumar supra, the Jammu and Kashmir
High Court has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in
State Bank of India vs M.R. Ganesh Babu2. The relevant
portion in the said judgment of the Apex Court is as under:
"It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the
nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere
volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as
regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be
the same but the responsibilities made a difference. One
cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of
degree and that there is an element of value judgment
by those who are charged with the administration in
fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service.
So long as such value judgment is made bona fide,
reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational
nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The
principle is not always easy to apply as there are
inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work
done by different persons in different organizations, or
even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay
scales of persons holding same posts and performing
similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of
responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a
valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative
authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to
the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an
incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities
concerned which, if arrived at bona fide reasonably and
rationally, was not open to interference by the court."
24. In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court has
held that equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work
done and it cannot be judged by mere volume of the work. The
Apex Court has also held that there may be qualitative
2002(4) SCC 556
difference as regards reliability and responsibility. It is also
held that the functions may be same but the responsibilities
may differ. The Apex Court has also held that as long as the
differentiation is based on intelligible criterion having nexus to
the object of differentiation, then such differentiation will not
amount to discrimination.
25. In the present case, upon appreciation of the
evidence on record, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the
work performed by the respondent and C.G.Girish is
comparable. This finding is based on the designation assigned
to both workmen.
26. It is noticed that the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir has held that the burden is on the person who asserts
that there is violation. If that is so, the respondent-workman is
required to establish that the work discharged by both
workmen are qualitatively similar.
27. Now the question is, "Whether the workman has
adduced evidence to substantiate his case?"
28. The workman has produced records to show that
both are having same designation and it appears that both are
- 10 -
placed under the same grade. As far as nature of work
entrusted to both workmen in comparison is concerned, it is to
be noticed that the relevant records are with the petitioner-
employer. As already noticed, the settlement relating to wages
was not produced before the Tribunal and same is produced
pursuant to direction issued by this Court. The said settlement
does not point to any clause which enables/justifies different
wages for the workmen coming under a particular grade.
29. This being the position, the petitioner-Company
should have produced the records before the Tribunal to justify
its stand that the works entrusted to respondent and C.G.
Girish are different to justify difference in wages. However, that
is not done. The Court is of the view that respondent has
produced the records showing same designation for both
respondent and C.G. Girish. The suggestion to the respondent-
employee in the cross-examination to the effect that C.G. Girish
is working as electrician is denied by the respondent. Under
these circumstances, the petitioner-Company was required to
produce the evidence relating to difference in work and
responsibility entrusted, to justify the wage difference.
- 11 -
30. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would
urge that there was no such occasion to produce the
documents as there was no specific issue in this regard. The
Court is of the view that, the point for reference framed by the
Government in its ambit covered said aspect of the matter
and the petitioner was required to produce the same.
31. In the absence of any material to justify the wage
disparity, the direction issued by the Tribunal to pay wages to
the respondent on par with C.G. Girish cannot be faulted.
32. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality
in the said finding in the light of the materials placed on record
before the Court, warranting interference in jurisdiction under
Article 227 of Constitution of India.
33. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
brn
