1989 (7) TMI 333 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Employees Win Pay Parity Battle: Equal Work Merits Equal Compensation Under Article 146(2)

SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

SC employees filed writ petitions seeking pay parity with Delhi HC employees. SC passed interim orders granting equivalent pay scales based on the ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the employees of the Supreme Court are entitled to a pay hike similar to that granted to employees of the Delhi High Court.The applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' under Article 39(d) of the Constitution and its relationship with Article 14.The finality and binding nature of the Delhi High Court judgments regarding pay scales and whether they operate as res judicata.The interpretation and scope of Article 146(2) of the Constitution concerning the power of the Chief Justice of India to frame rules relating to the conditions of service of Supreme Court employees.The role of the President of India in approving rules made under Article 146(2) and whether such approval is legislative.The extent to which the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission should influence the pay structure of Supreme Court employees.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISEqual Pay for Equal WorkLegal Framework and Precedents: Article 39(d) of the Constitution, which is a Directive Principle of State Policy, and Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, were considered. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was examined in the context of these constitutional provisions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that while Article 39(d) is not enforceable by any court, if unequal pay results in discrimination under Article 14, the doctrine becomes applicable. The Court emphasized that classification must be reasonable and have a nexus to the objective sought.Application of Law to Facts: The Court considered whether the Supreme Court employees were being discriminated against compared to their counterparts in the Delhi High Court.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court acknowledged the Attorney General's argument that the Delhi High Court's judgments were erroneous but noted that they were final and binding between the parties, thus operating as res judicata.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' could be invoked if there was discrimination under Article 14.Res Judicata and Finality of Delhi High Court JudgmentsLegal Framework and Precedents: The principle of res judicata and its applicability to judgments summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court was examined.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the summary dismissal of Special Leave Petitions does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141. However, the judgments of the Delhi High Court were final and binding between the parties.Application of Law to Facts: The Court considered whether the Delhi High Court judgments could be challenged based on their correctness.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the argument that the judgments could be collaterally challenged, emphasizing their finality and binding nature.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Delhi High Court judgments operated as res judicata between the parties.Interpretation of Article 146(2) and Role of the Chief Justice of IndiaLegal Framework and Precedents: Article 146(2) of the Constitution, which empowers the Chief Justice of India to frame rules for the service conditions of Supreme Court employees, was analyzed.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the Chief Justice of India has the primary responsibility to frame such rules, and the President's approval is required only for rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions.Application of Law to Facts: The Court noted that no rules had been framed by the Chief Justice of India in accordance with Article 146(2), and thus the stage for the President's approval had not been reached.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the Attorney General's argument that the President's role is legislative but emphasized the need for cooperation between the Chief Justice and the President.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Chief Justice of India should frame rules under Article 146(2) and submit them for the President's approval.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreservation of Quotes: 'The Chief Justice of India should frame rules under Article 146(2) after taking into consideration all relevant factors including the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and submit the same to the President of India for his approval.'Core Principles Established: The Court established that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable if discrimination under Article 14 is demonstrated. It also affirmed the finality of the Delhi High Court judgments as res judicata.Final Determinations: The Court directed the Chief Justice of India to frame rules relating to the salaries and allowances of Supreme Court employees and submit them to the President for approval. The interim orders regarding pay scales were to continue until the rules were framed and approved.