Supreme Court Upholds Equal Pay for Equal Work for Temporary Employees

The Supreme Court granted leave in all Special Leave Petitions (Civil) by condoning the delay in filing and refiling. It held that temporary employees, including daily-wage, ad-hoc, casual, and contractual employees, are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale along with dearness allowance if they perform similar duties as regular employees. The Court emphasized the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees and clarified that such employees are entitled to equal wages if their duties and responsibilities are identical to regular employees, irrespective of the department. The Court set aside the High Court's decision and affirmed the entitlement of temporary employees to the minimum wage of regular employees.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing and refiling of Special Leave Petition (Civil).
2. Entitlement of temporary employees to minimum of the regular pay-scale.
3. Application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees.
4. Relevance and interpretation of past judgments on 'equal pay for equal work'.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing and refiling Special Leave Petition (Civil):
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petitions (Civil), thereby granting leave in all special leave petitions.

2. Entitlement of temporary employees to minimum of the regular pay-scale:
The Supreme Court examined whether temporary employees, including daily-wage, ad-hoc, casual, and contractual employees, are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale along with dearness allowance. The full bench of the High Court had concluded that such temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale merely because their activities were similar to those of regular employees. However, the High Court carved out two exceptions for entitlement to the minimum of the regular pay-scale:
- Temporary employees appointed against regular sanctioned posts after a fair selection process.
- Temporary employees not appointed against regular sanctioned posts but continuously employed for 10 years.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's classification for differential treatment on wages unsustainable and set aside the decision.

3. Application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees if they perform similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees. The Court emphasized that the onus of proving parity in duties and responsibilities lies on the claimant. The Court also clarified that the principle applies irrespective of the department, provided the work and responsibilities are identical.

4. Relevance and interpretation of past judgments on 'equal pay for equal work':
The Supreme Court reviewed various past judgments to delineate the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Key points include:
- The principle applies to cases of unequal pay based on no or irrational classification.
- Persons holding the same rank/designation with dissimilar duties cannot claim equal pay.
- The principle applies if the duties and responsibilities are of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar.
- Temporary employees can claim minimum wages equal to regular employees if they perform similar duties.

The Court noted that the full bench of the High Court had misinterpreted the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006) 4 SCC 1, by conflating the issues of pay parity and regularization. The Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution Bench had distinguished between pay parity and regularization, affirming that temporary employees performing similar duties are entitled to the minimum wage of regular employees.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the full bench decision of the High Court and affirmed that temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of regular employees. The Court emphasized that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a constitutional right applicable to all employees, whether regular or temporary.

---