If the working condition and responsibilities and nature of duties are same than all staff should be equally paid

Court :
HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Brief :
Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat and a perusal of the records of the Industrial Adjudicator does not show any evidence having been led in this regard save for a comparative chart filed by the workmen Union but I find that notwithstanding such claim of the respondent workmen Union, it has not been the defence, neither before the Industrial Adjudicator nor before this Court of the petitioner employer that persons with the designation of Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents in the petitioner employer were not performing the same work or duty and were not to have the same educational qualification as those with the same designation in the Central Government. Further the argument of the counsel for the petitioner employer that w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 such parity has been granted and without any explanation as to why it was not so earlier, also confirms that there is parity in the employees of the petitioner employer and the employees of the Central Government with the same designation. The documents filed in this regard also show parity by designation. Thus notwithstanding absence of evidence, by non traverse and subsequent conduct, a case of parity is made out. The Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal (2008) 7 SCC 375 in the face of the employer Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation not producing any evidence to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties were different from the counterparts and holding that the Courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to the employees and in ignorance of material and relevant factors, upheld the order of the High Court granting pay parity. The award cannot be found fault with for the said reason also.

Citation :
CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.…Petitioner Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. Versus CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND EMPLOYEES’ UNION ..... Respondents Through: Mr. V.P. Uppal, Adv.