Ensuring Pay Parity for Daily Wage Group ‘D’ Employees: A Landmark Judgment by the Karnataka High Court

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the recent decision in High Court Legal Service Committee v. Government of Karnataka, WP No. 52485 of 2014, delivered by the Karnataka High Court on January 8, 2025. The petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was the High Court Legal Service Committee, a body functioning under the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which sought to secure pay parity and other benefits for Group ‘D’ employees working on daily wages at the Dharwad and Kalaburagi Benches of the High Court of Karnataka.

The crux of the dispute centered on the contention that these daily wage Group ‘D’ employees, who perform the same duties as their regular counterparts, were unjustly receiving lesser wages and fewer benefits. The respondents included the State Government of Karnataka, represented by its Chief Secretary, and the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court. The petition also highlighted the daily wage employees’ long-standing service and the pressing need for equality in remuneration and benefits.

In a far-reaching judgment, the court directed that these daily wage employees be treated at par with regular Group ‘D’ employees concerning salary, benefits, and holidays. Additionally, the court provided a framework for considering claims of arrears owed for the period from 2012 to 2019. This decision thus stands as a significant development in the realm of labor and administrative law, establishing new precedent regarding the principle of equal pay for equal work in governmental and judicial institutions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Karnataka High Court, through a Bench comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice N. V. Anjaria and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun, held that Group ‘D’ daily wage employees of the Dharwad and Kalaburagi Benches of the Court must be granted privileges and pay on par with the corresponding regular employees. Key points of the judgment include:

• The Government of Karnataka’s decision to grant general and government holidays, previously limited, now extends to daily wage employees serving at these circuit benches.
• The State admitted that these employees should be compensated at the same rate as the regular Group ‘D’ workforce, thereby recognizing parity in pay.
• The only remaining dispute relates to the payment of arrears for the period between 2012 and 2019, which the court instructed the affected employees to address through formal representation to the Registrar General of the High Court, who would then forward it to the State Government for final decision.
• The judgment effectively disposes of the PIL by recognizing that the primary relief sought—parity of pay and benefits—had largely been achieved.

The court further expressed its appreciation for the State Government’s fair stand in extending these benefits. The significance of this matter lies in ensuring continuous protection of labor rights, particularly of the lower-paid workforce in a judicial setup.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Although the Court’s judgment references multiple orders passed in the course of the proceedings (dated January 27, 2016; July 28, 2016; and November 17, 2021), it does not cite specific Supreme Court or other High Court decisions by name. Instead, it relies on a well-established legal principle of “equal pay for equal work,” often traced back to various Supreme Court rulings. The general proposition is that employees, performing identical or substantially similar duties, should not be discriminated against in terms of remuneration, especially when they have accrued significant years of service.

The earlier interim orders set the stage for granting such relief. For instance:

• Order of 27.01.2016: Identified the daily wagers who sought parity, which significantly advanced their cause.
• Order of 28.07.2016: Rejected a stand taken by the State that positioned these daily wagers differently from their regular counterparts, compelling a clearer justification of differential pay.
• Order of 17.11.2021: Acknowledged that the State had already begun paying enhanced wages to part-time employees prospectively.

Cumulatively, these orders reflect a continuous affirmation of the principle urging fair treatment and wage equality.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning is grounded in:

1. Constitutional Mandate: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India empower High Courts to issue orders and directions to ensure fundamental rights and legal entitlements are upheld. Here, the Court emphasized that daily wagers, performing the same duties at the same institution, have the right to be treated fairly and equally.
2. Administrative Law Principles: The Court reiterated that the State, as a model employer, must act equitably toward all categories of employees, particularly those in lower-paying positions. This included granting public holidays, a benefit recognized for regular employees, to the daily wage staff.
3. Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court centered on the notion that employees under the same employer, doing substantially similar work, should not be discriminated against purely on the basis of their status as daily wagers versus permanent staff.
4. Fairness in Public Service: As the employees serve vital functions at the High Court's circuit benches, the principle of fairness demanded their compensation must align with their primary service counterparts.

C. Impact

This judgment significantly bolsters the rights of temporary or daily wage workers. In practical terms, it sets out:

• Legal Precedent: Other courts and government bodies in Karnataka (and potentially beyond) may look to this ruling when confronted with similar disparities in wages.
• Administrative Clarity: State agencies that hire or manage daily wage staff might find themselves mandated to carefully ensure equal treatment or be able to provide clear, lawful justification for differing pay scales.
• Future Litigation: The Court’s approach lends momentum to employees seeking to enforce the concept of “equal pay for equal work” in other contexts. The recognition that daily wage employees are entitled to the same benefits, including public holidays, is a significant expansion of established rights.
• Potential Economic Repercussions: The State Government may incur additional financial obligations by paying arrears if it ultimately decides, or is compelled, to do so for the relevant 2012–2019 period. This could influence how the Judiciary and State handle future appointments.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Equal Pay for Equal Work: This principle, often cited in labor law, means that employees who carry out equivalent responsibilities under similar working conditions should not receive lesser pay based on administrative classifications (e.g., daily wage vs. permanent). The Court underscores that the nature of work, rather than the nature of the contract, determines entitlement.

Arrears Claim: Arrears are payments owed for past work performed. In this context, the daily wage staff indicates that they should have been paid higher wages during 2012–2019, in line with their regularized counterparts. The Court has given them a pathway to submit a formal request—through representation to the Registrar General—leading to greater clarity and possibly an additional financial settlement.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This is a mechanism through which issues of broader public concern are brought before the courts. Even though the dispute focuses on a distinct group of employees, the wider principle of fair labor practices impacts the public domain.

5. Conclusion

Through its judgment in High Court Legal Service Committee v. Government of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed a foundational labor principle: temporary and daily wage employees must not be discriminated against in remuneration and benefits simply because they lack permanent employment status. The directive that daily wage Group ‘D’ employees at the Dharwad and Kalaburagi Benches receive payment at par with regular staff, holidays, and other benefits reiterates the obligation of state institutions to act as fair employers.

While the principal relief sought in the PIL has been substantially granted, the matter of arrears from 2012 to 2019 remains open, allowing affected employees to seek further redress. This judgment, therefore, serves as an important precedent for extending equality and fairness within judicial bodies and beyond, demonstrating the Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional ideals and protecting the rights of vulnerable worker groups.