Full Text
LPA 1153/2005
MANAGEMENT OF DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhay N. Das, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate.
Date of Decision: 23th December, 2010
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
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 2010:DHC:6238-DB 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