# Daily wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and Putti Lal's case

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 880
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2093 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastva
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/daily-wage-employees-association-v-state-of-karnataka-and-putti-lal-s-case-40223
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

(A) Constitution of India, Article 226-
Practice and Procedure-Reasoning or
anology-classified in 3 categories-unius
ad-alterum (2) Duarum and terium (3)
Plurium ad-plura- explained by the court.

Held- Para 17

I would also not refrain from stating that
analogy is an imperfect form of inductive
logic which proceeds on the basis of a
number of points of resemblance of
attributes or relations between cases.
Not
only
does
it
emphasize
the
quantitative nature of resemblance but
also the relevance and importance of
such attributes or relations which are
ultimately matters of practical judgment.
Reasoning or analogy has been classified
into
three
categories.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,949 of 54,692. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39949 for what follows._

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
refusal to entertain the same. So far the
prayer as made by the petitioners in their
application dated 13.12.95 for setting
aside order passed by the prescribed
authority dated 2.1.75 by which land was
declared as surplus is concerned, that
cannot be allowed/accepted as it is for the
prescribed authority to examine the claim
of the petitioners in respect to the
bonafides in the transaction which has
already travelled up to the Apex Court.

13. For the reasons recorded above,
this writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The order passed by respondents 2 and 3
dated 19.12.96 and 16.9.96 are hereby
quashed. The matter is sent back to the
Prescribed Authority for passing fresh
orders on the objection of the petitioners
which has been filed under section 11 (2)
of the Act in accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2093 of 2002

Praveen Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. through the Secretary,
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Shukla
Sri Y.K. Sinha
Sri Neeraj Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Mithal
S.C.

(A) Constitution of India, Article 226-
Practice and Procedure-Reasoning or
anology-classified in 3 categories-unius
ad-alterum (2) Duarum and terium (3)
Plurium ad-plura- explained by the court.

Held- Para 17

I would also not refrain from stating that
analogy is an imperfect form of inductive
logic which proceeds on the basis of a
number of points of resemblance of
attributes or relations between cases.
Not
only
does
it
emphasize
the
quantitative nature of resemblance but
also the relevance and importance of
such attributes or relations which are
ultimately matters of practical judgment.
Reasoning or analogy has been classified
into
three
categories.
1.
Unius
ad
alterum (a simple comparison which
indicates a relationship of similarity in a
certain respect, (2) Duarum and terium
(based on the proportional relationship
in common of two things to a third thing
and (3) Plurium ad plura (a relationship
of proportionality i.e. A is to B as C is to
D. In the instant case, the formula of
simple
comparison
indicating
a
relationship of similarity in a certain
respect should be followed from the
Constitution Bench decision in Randhir
Singh's case which has been followed
with approval in D.S.Nakara v. Union of
India, Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate
Daily wage Employees Association v.
State of Karnataka and Putti Lal's case
and in my view, that would be the
correct position.

(B) Constitution of India Article 226-
Regularisation and payment of salaryDaily wagers working for more than 12
years-whether
pending
regularization
the direction for payment of minimum
wages is proper? Held- 'yes' considering
the direction contained in Putti Lal case
decided by Three Judges of Hon'ble
Supreme Court the view of Division
Bench judgment in State of Haryana Vs.
Jasmer Singh-will not come in the way of
minimum wages.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Praveen Kumar V. The State of U.P. through the Secretary and others
881
Held- Para 14

By this reckoning, in my considered
view, the ratio flowing from the decision
of Dharwad Case and also Putti Lal's case
squarely applies to the case of daily
wage employees who have invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution by means of the
present petitions aforestated. It would
be apt to notice here that the decisions
cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents do not appear to have
reviewed Putti Lal's case with further
clarification and elucidations and the
antinomy if at all discernible between
citations across the bar must await for
settlement by the Apex Court. The two
Judge Bench decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the respondents do
not erode the authorities of the four
decisions
aforestated
rendered
by
Constitution Bench and they have the
force of law. As stated supra, the three
Judge Bench decision cited by the
learned
counsel
for the
respondent
cannot be imported for application in the
instant case inasmuch as the said
decision has been rendered in different
context and different perspective.

(c) Words and Pharaceses Minimum
wages-denotes the wages prescribed by
the statute-provide for male earner and
his family-the bare essentials of food,
clothing shelter but includes education
for children, protection against ill health
misfortunes including old age.

Held-Para 19

Before parting I would also notice
decision of the Apex court in Express
News Paper Ltd v. Union of India, in
which the Apex Court elaborated on
wages (1) the living wage, (2) the fair
wage and (b) the minimum wage. The
Apex Court further elaborated that the
bare subsistence minimum wage is a
wage which would be sufficient to cover
the bare physical needs of a worker and
his family i.e, a rate which has got to be
paid to the worker irrespective of the
capacity of the industry to pay. The
statutory minimum wage is the minimum
prescribed by the statute and it will
provide for some measure of education,
medical requirements and amenities. 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
children, protection against ill-health
and misfortunes including old age. In the
instant case, the minimum wages being
paid to the petitioners is too exiguous to
meet the basic requirements of the
petitioners and their families considering
the spiraling prices and high cost of
living. Taking all this into reckoning, it
would
sub-serve
the
needs
of
the
petitioners if they are given minimum of
the pay scales.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N.Srivastava J.)

1. These petitions in hand have been
filed by the petitioners who have been
stagnating
in
various
Nagar
Nigams/Nagar Palika Parishads as Daily
wage Class 4 employees ever since their
induction in the service prior to June
1991. Since all the petitions are knit
together by common cause and have been
filed for the common reliefs, they have
been heard together for decision as a
composite case.

2. Writ petition No.2093 of 2002
Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. is taken
up as a leading case to get hang of the
substance of the controversy involved in
the petitions. The petitioner in the
aforestated writ petition namely Praveen
Kumar had entered the service of the
Nagar Palika Parishad Modi Nagar on
8.1.1991 as Electrician and ever- since
then he has been performing his duties
assigned to him in the capacity of daily
wage employee in unbroken continuity.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
3. I have heard Sarvsri R.C. Shukla,
Y.K. Sinha, Neeraj Tripathi and other
learned counsels appearing for respective
petitioners in the writ petitions taken
together for disposal as a composite case.

4. In paragraphs 18 and 28 of the
writ petition instituted by Sri Praveen
Kumar, the petitioner has specifically
averred that he is performing self-same
duties
and
discharging
self-same
functions at par with regularly appointed
persons and he has completed a span of
more than 12 years as such and by this
reckoning, he is entitled to regular salary
as being paid to regularly appointed
persons. It is further averred in the writ
petition, that representation was also
preferred seeking regularisation of service
and payment of salary at par with
regularly
appointed
persons.
The
quintessence of what has been canvassed
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
is that all the petitioners have been
discharging their duties similar to the
duties being performed by the regularly
appointed persons since as far back as the
year 1991 and it would thus transpire that
there is felt necessity to have the posts
qua the strength of daily wage employees
in the Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar
Nigams in the State of U.P. To enforce his
submissions, the learned counsel placed
credence on a decision in The Dharwad
District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage
Employees' Association and others v.
State of Karnataka and another1 and
State of U.P. V. Putti Lal2. In Putti
Lal's case, the Apex Court has directed to
consider
the
case
of
regularisation
according to Regularisation Rules 2002
and for the interim, the Apex Court

1 1990 (2) SLR 43
2 2002 (2) UPLBEC 5195
ordered payment of minimum of the pay
scale as applicable to their counter part in
the Government until services of such
daily wage employees are regularized.
The other decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel are Gujrat Agricultural
University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar3,
Jayanta
Biswas
v.
University
of
Calcutta and others4 and Daily rated
Casual Labour employed under P & T
Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar
Majdoor Manch v. Union of India and
others5 to hammer home the submissions
aforestated.

5. In the counter affidavit, the
averments made in paras 18 and 28 of the
writ petition have not been repudiated in
so far as they relate to regularisation. In
fact, the stand taken by Sri Pankaj Mittal,
is one of avowal of the claim of the
petitioners to the extent of their claim for
regularisation but at the same time the
learned counsel did not mince words to
state that the Nagar Palika Parishad Modi
Nagar has already put in papers to the
State Government for creation of posts
and it would act upon regularisation
process as soon as the requisite posts are
sanctioned by the State Government. The
learned counsel however vehemently
demurred to the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners were entitled to minimum of
the pay scale applicable to their counter
part in the Parishad and in vindication of
his stand, cited the authority of a recent
decision of the Apex Court in State of
Haryana v. Tilak Raj in Civil Appeal
No. 4570 of 2002 decided on 14.7.2003.
It was a decision in appeal aforestated

3 AIR 2001 SC 706
4 (2001) 1 UPLBEC 74
5 AIR 1987 SC 2342
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Praveen Kumar V. The State of U.P. through the Secretary and others
883
against the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana
High Court whereby the respondents were
directed to be paid the minimum pay
applicable to the regular employees. The
Apex Court held that a scale of pay is
attached to a definite post and in case of a
daily wager, he holds no posts. It was
further observed that the respondents
cannot be held to hold any posts to claim
any comparison with the regular and
permanent staff for any or all purposes
including the claim for equal pay and
allowances and that the equal pay for
equal work is a concept which requires
for
its
applicability
complete
and
wholesale identity between a group of
employees claiming identical pay scale
and the other group of employees who
have already earned such pay scales. It
was further observed that the direction
about equal pay cannot always be
translated into a mathematical formula. In
justifying the ratio from this decision, the
learned counsel further submitted that the
Apex Court has noticed in its decision the
case of Jasmer Singh in which the
quintessence
of
direction
was
that
pending regularisation, the daily wage
employees are entitled to get minimum of
the wages and also referred to various
other
cases
including
Ghaziabad
Development Authority v. Vikram
Chaudhary6 in fortifying his stand that
the
petitioners
are
not
entitled
to
minimum of the pay scales. As a sequel to
citations aforestated, the learned counsel
quipped that the aforestated decisions
being the latest in the series could be
followed for application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The
learned counsel again harking back to the
decision in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj

6 1995 (9) SCC 210
canvassed that in this decision, all the
earlier
authoritative
pronouncements
including one rendered in Jasmer Singh's
case has been noticed in which the Apex
court has painstakingly analyzed the ratio
decidendi flowing from all the earlier
decisions. It was further canvassed that
there is noticeable difference between the
functions being performed by daily wage
employees
and
regularly
appointed
persons and by this reckoning, threadbare
formula cannot be applied and therefore,
it was submitted that the petitioners are
not entitled to get minimum of the pay
scales. The learned counsel also drew
attention of the court to a decision in
State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh
Babu7. It is a three Judge Bench decision
in which the Apex Court reiterated the
principles that the equal pay must depend
upon the nature of work done and it
cannot be judged by the mere volume of
work; there may be qualitative difference
as regards reliability and responsibility. It
was further observed that functions may
be the same but the responsibilities make
a difference. It was a case in which
respondents 1 and 2 were appointed
within the category of specialist officers.
The Rural Development Officers who
were then considered as specialist officers
in the bank made a grievance and claimed
parity
with
the
generalist
officers
contending that having regard to the
duties and responsibilities shouldered by
them they were entitled to the same
benefit
as
was
extended
to
the
probationary and trainee officers who
were fitted on appointment/promotion at
four stages higher in the scale I applicable
to the officers of the junior management
grade. The Apex court in that case
converged to the conclusion that the

7 2002 (93) FLR 853
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
duties and responsibilities of probationary
officers/ trainee offices are more onerous
while the specialist officers are not
exposed to operational work/risk and
therefore it was held that there existed a
valid distinction in the matter of work and
nature
of
operations
between
the
specialist
officers
and
the
general
category
officers.
This
case
is
distinguishable inasmuch as decision in
that case flows from difference context
and perspective and none of the facets
involved in three Judge Bench decision
can be imported for application to the
facts and controversy involved in the
instant petition. The learned counsel also
stressed the point that the Court should
follow with approval the ratio flowing
from the decision in Jasmer Singh's case
and invited attention of the Court to a Full
Bench of this Court in Ganga Saran v.
Civil Judge Hapur8 in which it was laid
down that ".........the courts must follow
the judgment which appear to them to
state the law accurately and elaborately."

6.

I
have
devoted
anxious
considerations
to
the
respective
contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties and the question that forces itself
in the forefront for consideration is
whether
pending
regularisation,
the
petitioners can be granted relief of
payment of minimum of the pay scales
regard being had to the fact that the
petitioners in the instant case have put in
more than 12 years of service as Daily
wage employees.

7. Before delving into the factual
aspects, it is apposite to notice the ratio
distilled from the decisions rendered by
three-Judge Bench decisions in Putti Lal,

8 AIR Alld 114 (FB)
Randhir Singh and in Dharwad District
P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees
Association's cases cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. It is worthy of
mention that Randhir Singh case has been
followed in number of cases by this Court
and has been affirmed by yet another
Constitution Bench in D.S. Nakara v.
Union of India (1983) 2 SCR 165 and
subsequently, the principles laid down in
Randhir Singh's case were observed with
approval in Dharwad case. The two Judge
Bench decision in Jasmer Singh has been
rendered in conflict with the aspects dwelt
upon on prolix length in Randhir Singh's
case. Randhir Singh's case was followed
by Constitution Bench in D.S.Nakara and
subsequently in Dharwad and Putti Lal's
case on the point whether the daily rated
employees are entitled to minimum of the
wages or minimum of the pay. In
Randhir Singh's case observed as under:

"It is true that the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' is not expressly
declared by our Constitution to be a
fundamental right. But it certainly is a
constitutional goal. 'Article 39 (d) of the
Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for
equal work for both men and women' as a
Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal
pay for equal work for both men and
women' means equal for pay equal work
for everyone and as between the sexes,.
Directive Principles, as has been pointed
out in some of the judgments of this Court
have to be read into the fundamental
rights as a matter of interpretation .
Article 14 of the constitution enjoins the
State not to deny any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of
the laws and Article 16 declares that
there shall be 3equalityof opportunity for
all citizens
in
matters relating
to
employment or appointment to any office
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Praveen Kumar V. The State of U.P. through the Secretary and others
885
under the State. These equality clauses of
the Constitution must mean something to
everyone. To the vast majority of the
people the equality clauses of the
Constitution would mean nothing if they
are unconcerned with the work they do
and the pay they get. To them the equality
clauses will have some substance if equal
work means equal pay. Whether the
special procedure prescribed by a statute
for trying alleged robber-barons and
smuggler kings or for dealing with tax
evaders is discriminatory, whether a
particular governmental policy in the
matter of grant of licences or permits
confers unfettered discretion on the
Executive, whether the take-over of the
empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary
and unconstitutional and other questions
of like nature, leave the millions of people
of this country untouched. Question
concerning wages and the like, mundane
they may be, are yet matters of vital
concern to them and it is there, if at all
that
the
equality
clauses
of
the
constitution have any significance to
them. Construing Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution in the light of the
Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the
view that the principle 'equal pay for
equal work' is deducible for those articles
and may be properly applied to cases of
unequal scales of pay based on no
classification or irrational classification
though those drawing the different scales
of pay do identical work under the same
employer."

8. In the case of Daily Rated
Casual Labour employed under P & T
Department v. Union of India & Ors.
(1988) 1 SCC 122, the Apex Court
reckoned with issue in question and
indicated as under:

"It may be true that the petitioners
have not been regularly recruited but
many of them have been working
continuously for more than a year in the
department and some of them have been
engaged as casual labourers for nearly
ten years. They are rendering the same
kind of service which is being rendered by
the regular employees doing the same
type of work. Clause (2) of Article 38 of
the Constitution of India which contains
one of the Directive Principles of State
Policy provides that the State shall, in
particular,
strive
to
minimize
the
inequalities in income and endeavour to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities
and opportunities, not only amongst
individuals but also amongst groups of
people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations. Even
though the above directive principle may
not be enforceable as such by virtue of
Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it
may be relied upon by the petitioners to
show that in the instant case they have
been subjected to hostile discrimination.
It is urged that the State cannot deny at
least the minimum pay in the pay scales of
regularly employed workmen even though
the government may not be compelled to
extend all the benefits enjoyed by
regularly recruited employees. We are of
the view that such denial amounts to
exploitation of labour. The government
cannot take advantage of its dominant
position and compel any worker to work
even as a casual labourer on starvation
wages. It may be that the casual labourer
has agreed to work on such low wages.
That he has done because he has no other
choice. It is poverty that has driven him to
that state. The Government should be a
model employer. We are of the view that
on the facts and in the circumstances of
this case, the classification of employees
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
into regularly recruited employees and
casual employees for the purpose of
paying less than the minimum pay
payable
to
employees
in
the
corresponding
regular
cadres
particularly in the lowest rungs of the
department where the pay scales are the
lower is not tenable. India is a socialist
republic. It implies the existence of
certain important obligations which the
State has to discharge. The right to work,
the right to free choice of employment, the
right to just and favourable conditions of
work, the right to protection against
unemployment, the right of everyone who
works
to
just
and
favourable
remuneration ensuring a decent living for
himself and his family, the right of every
one without discrimination of any kind to
equal pay for equal work, the right to rest,
leisure , reasonable limitation on working
hours and periodic holidays with pay, the
right to form trade unions and the right to
join trade unions of one's choice and the
right to security of work are some of the
rights which have to be ensured by
appropriate legislative and executive
measures. It is true that all these rights
cannot be extended simultaneously. But
they do indicate the socialist goal. The
degree of achievement in this direction
depends upon the economic resources,
willingness of the people to produce and
more than all the existence of industrial
peace throughout the country. Of those
rights the question of security of work is
of utmost importance. If a person does not
have the feeling that he belongs to an
organization engaged in production he
will not put forward his best effort to
produce more. That sense of belonging
arises only when he feels that he will not
be turned out of employment the next day
at the whim of the management. It is for
this reason it is being repeatedly observed
by those who are in charge of economic
affairs of the countries in different parts
of the world that as far as possible
security of work should be assured to the
employees so that they may contribute to
the maximization of production. It is
again for this reason that managements
and
the
governmental
agencies
in
particular should not allow workers to
remain as casual labourers or temporary
employees for an unreasonably long
period of time........"

9. Again in U.P. Income Tax
Department
contingent
Paid
Staff
Welfare Association v. Union of India
and others9, the Apex Court having
regard to the principles as laid down in P
& T Department Case aforestated, gave
following relief in the ultimate analysis.

"We accordingly allow this writ
petition and direct the respondents to pay
wages to the workmen who are employed
as the contingent paid staff of the Income
Tax Department throughout India, doing
the work of Class IV employees at the
rates equivalent to the minimum pay in
the pay scale of the regularly employed
workers
in
the
corresponding
cadres......."

10. The Dharwad District P.W.D.
Literate
Daily
Wage
Employees
Association v. State of Karnataka10 has
been rendered noticing the principles in
the aforestated case. It was a three Judge
Bench decision dealing with the case of
confirmation of daily rated and monthly
rated
employees
as
a
regularly
government servants and for payment of
normal salary at the rates prescribed for

9 (1987) Suppl. SCC 668
10 1990 (2) SLR 43
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Praveen Kumar V. The State of U.P. through the Secretary and others
887
the
appropriate
categories
of
the
Government servants and other service
benefits. It was pleaded in that case that
about
50,000
such
workers
were
employed in the different Government
establishments and though many of them
have put in 16 to 20 years of continuous
service which is proof of the fact that
there is permanent need for the jobs they
perform-they have not been regularized in
their service and were not being paid
equal pay for equal work as has been
mandated by this Court by way of
implementation
of
the
Directive
Principles of State Policy. In ultimate
analysis following directions were issued
by the Apex Court.

"We can well realize the anxiety of
the petitioners who have waited too long
to share the equal benefits mandated by
Part IV of the Constitution in respect of
their employment. At the same time we
cannot overlook the constraints arising
out of or connected with availability of
State resources. Keeping both in view that
reposing our trust in the relevant
instrumentalities of the State that may be
connected with the implementation of the
scheme to act with a sense of fairness,
anxiety to meet the demands of the human
requirements and also anxious to fulfill
the constitutional obligations of the State,
the directions which we give below will
give a final shape to the scheme thus.

1. the casual/daily rated employees
appointed on or before 1.7.1984 shall
be
treated
as
monthly
rated
establishment employees at the fixed
pay of Rs. 780/- per month without
any allowances with effect from
1.1.1990. They would be entitled to an
annual increment of Rs. 15/- till their
services
are
regularized.
On
regularisation they shall be put in the
minimum of the time scale of pay
applicable to the lowest Group D
cadre under the Government but
would be entitled to all other benefits
available
to
regular
government
servants of the corresponding grade.
Those belonging to the B or C Groups
upon regularization shall similarly be
placed at the minimum of the time
scale of pay applicable to their
respective groups under government
service, and shall be entitled to all
other benefits available to regular
government servants of these grades.
2. From amongst the casual and daily
rated employees who have completed
ten years of service by 31.12.1989,
18600
shall
immediately
be
regularized with effect from 1.1.1990
on the basis of seniority cum
suitability.
There
shall
be
no
examination but physical infirmity
shall mainly be the test of suitability.
3. The
remaining
monthly
rated
employees covered by the paragraph
1 who have completed ten years of
service as on 31st Dec 1989 shall be
regularized before 31st December,
1990 in a phased manner on the basis
of seniority cum suitability, suitability
being understood in the same way as
above.
4. The balance of casual or daily rated
employees who become entitled to
absorption on the basis of completing
ten
years
of
service
shall
be
absorbed/regularized in a phased
manner on the same principle as
above
on
or
before
December
31,1997.

At the point of regularisation, credit
shall be given for every unit of five years
of service in excess of ten years and one
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
additional increment in the time scale of
pay shall be allowed by way of
weightage."

11. Putti Lal's case was also a Three
Judge Bench decision in which the Apex
Court delved into all related aspects and
converged to the conclusions that the
respondents in that case were entitled to
minimum of the pay scales at par with
their
counter-parts
in
the
Forest
Department. In this decision, the Apex
Court gave weightage to the principles
flowing from the above quoted decisions
and held good the relief of minimum of
the pay scales. On the other hand, in State
of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh which the
two Judge Bench decision has noticed in
State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj11, the
observation was to the following effect.

"The principle of "equal pay for
equal work" is not always easy to apply.
There
are
inherent
difficulties
in
comparing and evaluating the work done
by
different
persons
in
different
organizations, or even in the same
organization. There may be differences in
educational or technical qualifications
which may have a bearing on the skills
which the holders bring to their job
although the designation of the job may
be the same. There may also be other
considerations which have relevance to
efficiency in service which may justify
differences in pay scales on the basis of
criteria such as experience and seniority,
or a need to prevent stagnation in the
cadre, so that the good performance can
be elicited from persons who have
reached the top of the pay scale. There
may
be
various
other
similar
considerations which may have a bearing

11 2003 AIR SCW 3382
on efficient performance in a job. The
evaluation of such jobs for the purposes
of pay scale must be left to expert bodies
and unless there are any malafides, its
evaluation should be accepted.

In the ultimate analysis, the Apex
court
converged
to
the
following
conclusions.

"Therefore, the respondents, who are
employed on daily wages cannot be
treated as on a par with persons in
regular service of the State of Haryana
holding
similar
posts.
Daily-rated
workers are not required to possess the
qualifications prescribed for regular
workers, nor do they have to fulfill the
requirement relating to age at the time of
recruitment. They are not selected in the
manner in which regular employees are
selected. There are also other provisions
relating to regular service such as the
liability of a member of the service to be
transferred, and his being subject to the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities
as prescribed, which the daily-rated
workmen are not subjected to. They
cannot, therefore, be equated with regular
workmen for the purposes for their wages.
Nor can they claim the minimum of the
regular pay scale of the regularly
employed. However, if a minimum wage is
prescribed
for
such
workers,
the
respondents would be entitled to it if it is
more than what they are being paid."

12. It would thus transpire that the
Apex Court considered the ratio flowing
from Randhir Singh's case and taking cue
from the observation in that case that the
judgment of administrative authorities
concerning the responsibilities which
attach to the post and the degree of
reliability expected of an incumbent
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Praveen Kumar V. The State of U.P. through the Secretary and others
889
would be a value judgment of the
authorities concerned which if arrived at
bonafide reasonably and rationally was
not open to interference by the court,
converged to the inference to the
following effect.

"It is, therefore, clear that the
quality of work performed by different
sets of persons holding different jobs will
have to be evaluated. There may be
differences in educational or technical
qualifications which may have a bearing
on the skills which the holders bring to
their job although the designation of the
job may be the same. There may also be
other
considerations
which
have
relevance to efficiency in service which
may justify differences in pay scales on
the basis of criteria such as experience
and seniority, or a need to prevent
stagnation in the cadre, so that good
performance can be elicited from persons
who have reached the top of the pay
scale. There may be various other similar
considerations which may have a bearing
on efficient performance in a job. This
Court has repeatedly observed that
evaluation of such jobs for the purposes
of pay scale must be left to expert bodies
and unless there are any mala fides, its
evaluation should be accepted."

It was upon consideration of observations
in that case that differentiation in pay
scales
among
government
servants
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 Apex Court held the
Daily Wagers not entitled to minimum of
the pay scales at par with regularly
appointed employees. The Apex Court
considered in that case the aspect that the
principle of equal pay for equal work was
originally enunciated as a part of the
Directive Principles of State Policy in
Article 39 (d) of the Constitution and that
in the case of Randhir Singh, it was held
that the principle had to be read into
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
attended with the observation that this
was a constitutional goal capable of being
achieved through constitutional remedies.
It is obvious from the perusal of the
decision that the two Judge Bench
decision in Jasmer Singh's case held the
daily wage employees not entitled to
minimum of the pay scale in the
perspective of the facts of that case. In P.
& T. Case which has been noticed in
Dharwad P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage
Employees
Association's,
the
Apex
Court observed that Clause (2) of Article
38 of the Constitution of India which
contains one of the Directive principles of
State Policy provides that the State shall
in particular, strive to minimize the
inequalities in income and endeavour to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities
and opportunities not only amongst
individuals but also amongst groups of
people. It was further observed that even
though the above directive principle may
not be enforceable as such by virtue of
Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it
may be relied upon by the petitioners to
show that in the instant case they have
been subjected to hostile discrimination. It
was urged in that case that the State could
not deny at least the minimum pay in the
pay
scales
of
regularly
employed
workmen even though the government
may not be compelled to extend all the
benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited
employees and in connection with the
proposition, it was observed that "We are
of the view that such denial amounts to
exploitation of labour. The Government
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
cannot take advantage of its dominant
position and compel any worker to work
even as a casual labour on starvation
wages." It was further quipped by the
Court that "it may be that the casual
labourer has agreed to work on such low
wages and that he has done because he
has no other choice. It is poverty that has
driven him to that stage. The Government
should be a model employer." Putti Lal's
case has been rendered in the conspectus
of all the above decisions. It was also a
decision of three Judge Bench subsequent
to the decision in Jasmer Singh's case and
the ratio flowing from Randhir Singh's
case ending with Putti Lal's case has been
followed with approval in a recently
decision in State of West Bengal and
others v. Pantha Chatterjee and others,
2003 AIR SCW 3316. In this case, the
observation germane to the point was that
"In several cases this Court applying the
principle of equal pay for equal work has
held that a daily wager, if he is
discharging the similar duties as these in
the
regular
employment
of
the
Government should at least be entitled to
receive the minimum of the pay scale
though he might not be entitled to any
increment or any other allowance that is
permissible to his counter part in the
Government." It was further observed by
the Apex Court in that case that "In our
opinion that would be the correct position
and would, therefore, direct that these
daily wagers would be entitled to draw at
the minimum of the pay scale being
received by their counter part in the
Government and would not be entitled to
any other allowances or increment so
long as they continue on daily wage......"

All the above decisions have been
noticed with approval in a recent decision
of the Apex court in State of West
Bengal and others v. Pantha Chatterjee
and others12. In this case, the Apex Court
was seized of the claim of Part Time
Border Wing Home Guards vis-à-vis
regular Boarder Wing Home Guards of
the West Bengal and the Border Security
Force personnel. In the matter, it was
claimed that the Part time Border Wing
Home Guards were performing similar
duties
and
discharging
same
responsibilities. It was contended in that
petition that the part time Border Wing
Home
Guards
are
entitled
to
the
honorarium and they are to be paid only
as and when their services are required
and utilized. It was further claimed in
opposition
in
that
case
that
their
appointment was not to exceed for a
period of more than three months except
in cases where it was recommended
otherwise by the authorities of the Border
Security Force. It was noticed by the
Apex Court that duties of the permanent
Border Wing Home Guards and part time
Border Wing Home Guards are the same
and performed under the same situation
and circumstances but there has been
disparity in their emoluments and other
facilities, necessities for performing their
duties. In the background of the facts of
that case, it was held by the Apex court
that the part time border Wing Home
Guards cannot be treated as volunteers
engaged in casual nature of work so as to
be
termed
as
part
time
staff
of
Government of West Bengal and as such
they cannot be treated differently from the
permanent staff and are to be accorded
parity with them.

13. Reverting to the submissions
made across the bar, the learned counsel
for the petitioners laid considerable stress

12 2003 AIR SCW 3316
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Praveen Kumar V. The State of U.P. through the Secretary and others
891
on the point that the aforesaid decision
being of larger Bench, it has over-riding
effect over all other decisions cited across
the bar by the learned counsel for the
respondents and in connection with this
proposition, the learned counsel has
drawn attention to the decisions of the
Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ram
Chandra Trivedi13 and in Ishwari
Khetan Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.14. In
Union of India v. K.S.Subramanian15,
the quintessence of the observations is
that proper course for a High Court would
be to try to find out and follow the
opinion expressed by larger Benches of
Supreme court in preference to those
expressed by Smaller Benches of the
Court. That is the practice followed by
this (S.C.) itself. The practice has now
crystallized into a rule of law declared by
the Supreme Court. If however, the High
Court is of opinion that the views
expressed by larger benches of Supreme
Court are not applicable to the facts of the
case it should have said so giving reasons
supporting its point of view. In Chandra
Trivedi's case, the Apex Court held that
conflict between the views expressed by
larger Benches and Smaller Benches of
Supreme Court, the High Courts have to
follow the practice already being followed
by the Supreme Court itself in this behalf
and to find out and to follow the views
expressed by larger Bench. In Ishwari
Khetan Sugar Mills' case (supra), it was
observed
by
the
Apex
court
that
controversy in decisions of Supreme
court- Such decisions are impliedly
overruled to the extent of conflict in them
by a later larger Constitution Bench on
that point. The following decisions should

13 AIR 1976 SC 2547
14 AIR 1980 SC 1955
15 AIR 1976 SC 2433
also be reckoned with which have bearing
on the controversy involved in this case.
In R.L.D. Corporation v. Labour
Court, (1990) 3 SCC, the substance of
what was observed was that a subsequent
Bench would not follow the decision of
an earlier Bench when it was per incuriam
i.e.