- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Surinder Singh And Another v. Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners are daily-rated employees of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) who have worked for several years performing the same duties as regularly appointed Class IV staff. They filed two writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India seeking parity of wages and allowances with their regular counterparts. Relying upon the Court’s earlier judgment concerning employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendras (1986 1 SCC 637), they contended that denial of “equal pay for equal work” violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The petitions were heard by a Bench presided over by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether daily-rated CPWD employees who perform identical work as regular Class IV employees are entitled to the same salary and allowances.
- Whether the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work” is merely an abstract doctrine or one that is judicially enforceable.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- They perform duties identical to those of permanent Class IV employees and therefore must be paid at the same scale in keeping with Article 14 and Article 39 of the Constitution.
- Even if posts are not formally sanctioned, the absence of sanctioned vacancies cannot justify wage discrimination.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case already settled the issue in favour of equal pay for casual workers doing identical work.
Respondents’ (Central Government) Arguments
- The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is an abstract principle incapable of enforcement through judicial proceedings.
- They relied on observations in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139, to suggest that wage parity cannot be granted.
- Lack of sanctioned posts justifies payment of daily wages instead of regular scales.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendras v. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 637 | Daily-rated employees performing work identical to Class IV staff are entitled to the same salary and service conditions (excluding automatic regularisation). | Used as direct precedent; the Court replicated its earlier directions for CPWD daily-rated employees. |
| Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 | Cited by the Government to argue that equal-pay claims are abstract and non-justiciable. | The Court distinguished the decision, noting that subsequent jurisprudence has clarified enforceability of the doctrine. |
| Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 | Affirmed that “equal pay for equal work” is a constitutional mandate enforceable by courts. | Relied upon to reject the Government’s contention that the doctrine is abstract. |
| D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 | Constitution Bench endorsement of the principle of equality in service conditions and benefits. | Cited to demonstrate continuing approval of the equal-pay doctrine by larger Benches. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Bench emphasized that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and implicitly demands equal remuneration for equal work. Article 39 of the Directive Principles specifically enjoins the State to secure equal pay for equal work, and the Forty-Second Amendment declares India a socialist republic, reinforcing this obligation.
Justice Reddy criticised the Central Government for advancing arguments traditionally used by “the exploiting class,” noting that a welfare State must model progressive labour practices. The Court held that workers’ acceptance of lower wages under economic duress cannot validate constitutional non-compliance. Prior judgments—particularly Randhir Singh and D.S. Nakara—were invoked to confirm that “equal pay for equal work” is a “vital and vigorous” doctrine, not an unenforceable abstraction.
After distinguishing Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi, the Court concluded that performance of identical duties, not the existence of sanctioned posts, determines entitlement to parity of wages. In line with its earlier ruling in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras matter, the Court found no legal basis for treating daily-rated CPWD employees differently from regular Class IV staff.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: Both writ petitions were allowed. The Court directed the Central Government and the CPWD to pay the petitioners—and all other daily-rated employees—the same salary and allowances as regular Class IV employees, with effect from the respective dates of their initial employment. Each petitioner was also awarded costs of ₹1,000.
Implications: The decision reaffirms judicial enforceability of the “equal pay for equal work” doctrine against State employers, signalling that governmental and public sector entities must eliminate wage differentials for workers performing identical duties. While the Court expressed hope for future regularisation of long-term casual workers, no immediate regularisation order was passed.
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.—In these two writ petitions, the petitioners who are employed by the Central Public Works Department on a daily wage basis and who have been so working for several years, demand that they should be paid the same wages as permanent employees employed to do identical work. They state that even if it is not possible to employ them on regular and permanent basis for want of a suitable number of posts, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be denied “equal pay for equal work”. In a similar petition filed by employees of the Nehru Yuvak Kendras (1986) 1 SCC 637, a Bench of this Court consisting of Bhagwati, C.J and Amarendra Nath Sen, J. issued the following directions:
“We therefore allow the writ petitions and make the rule absolute and direct the Central Government to accord to these persons who are employed by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who are concededly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, the same salary and conditions of service as are being received by Class IV employees, except regularisation which cannot be done since there are no sanctioned posts. But we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras, so that these persons can be regularised. It is not at all desirable that any management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years. The salary and allowances of Class IV employees shall be given to these persons employed in Nehru Yuvak Kendras with effect from the date when they were respectively employed.”
Earlier the court also observed that it was a peculiar attitude to take on the part of the Central Government to say that they would pay only daily wages and not the same wages as other similarly employed employees, though all of them did identical work. The court said:
“This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there should be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value.... It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees.”
One would have thought that the judgment in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case (1986) 1 SCC 637 concluded further argument on the question. However, Shri V.C Mahajan learned counsel for the Central Government reiterated the same argument and also contended that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” was a mere abstract doctrine and that it was not capable of being enforced m a court of law. He referred us to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1139, (1962) 44 ITR 532. We are not a little surprised that such an argument should be advanced on behalf of the Central Government 36 years after the passing of the Constitution and 11 years after the Forty-second Amendment proclaiming India as a socialist republic. The Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618, (1982) 3 SCR 298 this Court has occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Mohan Lal (1982) 1 SCC 618, (1982) 3 SCR 298 Bakshi v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1139, (1962) 44 ITR 532 and to point out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine accepted throughout the world, particularly by all socialist countries. For the benefit of those that do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh case (1982) 1 SCC 618, (1982) 3 SCR 298 has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, (1983) 2 SCR 165. The Central Government, the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings. We allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case (1986) 1 SCC 637 to pay to the petitioners and all other daily rated employees, to pay the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were respectively employed. The respondents will pay to each of the petitioners a sum of Rs 1000 towards their costs. We also record our regret that many employees are kept in service on a temporary daily wage basis without their services being regularised. We hope that the government will take appropriate action to regularise the services of all those who have been in continuous employment for more than six months.
Alert