AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petition was filed praying that,
5(A) To quash and set aside the impugned award (copy Annex.A) of the Industrial Tribunal (Gujarat), Nadiad in Ref. No. ITN/ 640/ 98 and to dismiss the said reference.
The Court issued rule and granted ad interim relief in terms of para 5(B) and issued notice as to interim relief returnable on 19th April 2004 on 8th March 2004. Thereafter, on 15th July 2004 the Court confirmed the ad interim relief and ordered that the same shall continue to operate till final disposal of the petition. Though served the Respondents have chosen not to appear in the matter. The matter was adjourned from time to time as detailed hereunder:
Date of proceeding
Adjourned to
13.12.2005
22.12.2005
22.12.2005
24.03.2006
05.08.2010
23.09.2010
23.09.2010
14.10.2010
14.10.2010
30.11.2010
09.08.2011
07.09.2011
Learned advocate Mr. M.D. Pandya invited attention of the Court to decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1149 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 6886 of 1998 with Civil Application No. 2815 of 2005, which came to be decided by judgement and order dated 21st April 2005. Mr. Pandya invited attention of the Court to the following paras of the above judgement, which are reproduced hereunder:
At this stage, we must also look into the different cadres. Civil Mistries and Civil Supervisors are different cadres who are getting different pay and are entitled to different pay scales. If the pay scale of Civil Supervisors is awarded in favour of the Civil Mistries, then the cadre of the Civil Mistry would become equal to the cadre of Civil Supervisor and would virtually merge in the cadre of Civil Supervisor and would stand abolished. If this is allowed to be done, then a person who is not entitled to be appointed as Civil Supervisor and does not have the qualifications for the said post will have to be appointed as Civil Supervisor even if he does not possess qualifications for being appointed as Civil Supervisor. In the reverse if the cadre of Civil Supervisor is allowed to merge in the cadre of Civil Mistry, it would create a further anomalous situation because a person having higher qualification and entitled to higher post will have appointed to a lower post because of abolition of the higher cadre. If the judgment of the learned Single Judge is allowed to stand, each and every Civil Mistry would become a Civil Supervisor, the result would be abolishing the cadre itself.
It is to be seen that in the matter of Government of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and Others, the Supreme Court observed that the plea of equal pay for equal work would be applicable to the persons similarly situated and not to the persons who are differently situated. In the said matter, the Supreme Court observed that it is for the executive and not for the Courts to lay down the requisite qualification for a post. The Supreme Court further observed that if different cadres have different qualifications and different pay scales are allowed, then the said cadre and the said pay scale is allowed to survive and cannot be abolished. The Supreme Court observed that Article 14 read with Article 19(d) envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same irrespective of the educational qualifications or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations, the said doctrine would be automatically applicable. According to the Supreme Court, the holders of higher educational qualifications can be treated as a separate class and can be treated differently....
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court.
Having perused award and order dated 26th September 2002 in Reference (ITN) No. 640 of 1998 passed by the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, more particularly para 7, which is appreciated in light of the contents of para 2 of the judgement of the Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court.
In view of that the present petition is allowed and award and order dated 26th September 2002 in Reference (ITN) No. 640 of 1998 passed by the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No. order as to cost.
The Registry is directed to keep a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in LPA No. 1149 of 2003 in the file of this petition.