GRIH KALYAN KENDRA WORKERS' UNION v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 15

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.N. SINGH, N.D. OJHA

Case summary

The petitioner has claimed relief for declaring the Kendra to be an instrui mentality of State and for the issue of a direction directing the respondents to pay equal pay as paid to the similar employees doing similar work in NDMC and oher Departments of Delhi Administration,...

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by l SINGH, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner Union on behalf of the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra for a declaration that the Grih Kalyan Kendra wherein the workers are employed is 'State' within_the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay regular pay scales in parity with other employees performing similar • work under the Union of India like New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of Delhi Administration. Grih Kalyan Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Its objectives as set out in the Memorandum of ;..

:, Association are as follows: r "(a) To promote social, economic, cultural and educational activities for the betterment of the Central Government employees and their families; (b) To impart technical and vocational training in home crafts and other house-hold arts for useful utilisation of • - Their grievance of discrimination in matters relating to payment of scale of pay and other emoluments was examined in the earlier writ petition and the Former Chief Justice held that there was no employment comparable to the employment held under the Grih Kalyan -- Kendra and therefore they could not seek parity with other employees working under NDMC or the Delhi Administration or Union of India.

We consider it necessary to refer to the relevant part of the Report of T the Former Chief Justice, which is as under: "The first consideration which I am required by the • Supreme Court to take into account is "whether other similarly situated eJllployees (engaged in similar comparable work, putting in comparable hours of work, in a comparable employment) are paid a higher pay and as to what should be the entitlement of the complaining employees in order not to violate the equal pay for equal work principle. " The facts and the statistical data set out above will show that the employment in the Kendra is unique in . character, that is to say, it is not comparable with any other employment . . Its motivation and genesis coupled with the absence of rules governing service conditions elude even a broad comparison between the employees of the Kendra and· the employees of other organisations holding somewhat similar posts, that is, posts bearing similar duties and designation.

It is difficult to conceive of any other service whic. h one can enter at any age, regardless of educational qualifications, and from which one can retire when one chooses. It is something like '·come if you like, go when you please". Since there is no other employment which can bear a reasonable comparison with employment in the service of the Kendra, it is difficult to perceive employees similarly situated as those in the service of the Kendra. Therefore, the fact that those other employees may be drawing higher pay will not justify the conclusion that the J-. employees of the Kendra of Category (b), with whom alone we are concerned, are denied the benefit of the principle "Equal pay for equal work". It is trite that the concept of · equality implies and requires equal treatment for those who are situated equally. One cannot draw comparisons .. between unequals.

If the facts of a given case fail to establish that persons who are aggrieved are not situated I -~ equally with others, the benefits available to those others cannot ipso facto be given to the former though, of course, ·-· the question as to whether persons are situated equally has ) to be determined by the application of broad and reason- .... able tests and not by the application of a mathematical formula of exactitude. Try howsoever as one may be applying broad and reasonable criteria, the conclusion is inescapable that there are no other employment comparable to the employment in the (b) category of the Kendra, that means that the aggrieved employees are not situated similarly as any others. This then is my answer to the first question referred by the Supreme Court for my consideration. Putting it. briefly, there being no other Government or semi-Govern- .?

-, ment employees who can be regarded, even broadly, as being situated similarly as the employees of the Kendra with whom we are concerned, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of mere honorarium to these employees. " The above findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice are findings )"\ of facts founded on the material placed before him by the parties. r·~ These findings were accepted by this Court and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of by an order dated 6th May 1988. Now it is not open to th'-' petitioners to reopen the same question by means of the present writ petition. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners an attempt was made to dispute the findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice but in fairness, Shri Govind Mukhoty made a candid statement before us during the course of the arguments -... ,; that the findings of the Former Chief Justice are not disputed.

The findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice clearly show that there has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not being discriminated from those who are situated equally. The petitioners' claim fl A for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, th~refore must fail. Since the petitioner's claim for parity, in pay with regard to ·the employees working in the New Delhi~unicipal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi Administration and Union of India has failed, their claim for the issue Of direction to the respondents· to B provide for the pension, gratuity and provident fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra must also fail. In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Y. Lal Petition dismissed. ..... -