Supreme Court rules on pay scale for employees; dismisses contempt petitions.

The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, ruling that the State Government complied with court orders by fixing the Petitioners' pay at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. The Petitioners, classified as 'permanent' employees, were not entitled to increments reserved for 'regular' employees. The court clarified that previous erroneous grants of increments to some employees did not entitle the Petitioners to the same.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of employees as 'permanent' under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.
2. Entitlement to pay-scale and increments for employees classified as 'permanent'.
3. Compliance with court orders regarding pay fixation and increments.
4. Distinction between 'permanent' and 'regular' employees.
5. Applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Employees as 'Permanent':
The Petitioners were engaged by the State of Madhya Pradesh as daily wagers and claimed entitlement to be classified as 'permanent employees' under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The labour court directed their classification as 'permanent', which was upheld by the industrial court and the High Court. This classification was based on Standing Order No. 2, which defines a 'permanent' employee as one who has completed six months of satisfactory service in a clear vacancy.

2. Entitlement to Pay-Scale and Increments:
The Petitioners contended that once classified as 'permanent', they were entitled to the regular pay-scale with increments and other emoluments. The State Government fixed their pay at the minimum of the regular pay-scale without increments, which the Petitioners argued was not in full compliance with the court's orders. The Respondents argued that the Petitioners were not 'regularised' against any posts and were only entitled to the minimum pay-scale as 'permanent' employees.

3. Compliance with Court Orders:
The High Court had directed the State Government to implement the orders classifying the Petitioners as 'permanent' and to grant them the pay-scale of permanent posts. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's Special Leave Petitions and directed compliance within eight months. The State Government fixed the pay at the minimum of the pay-scale without increments, which the Petitioners claimed was not in full compliance with the court's directions.

4. Distinction Between 'Permanent' and 'Regular' Employees:
The court examined whether 'permanent' employees under the Standing Orders could be treated as 'regular' employees. It was held that classification as 'permanent' does not equate to regularisation. The court referred to previous judgments, including Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority and M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey, which distinguished between 'permanent' and 'regular' employees. 'Permanent' employees are entitled to the minimum pay-scale but not to increments, which are reserved for 'regular' employees appointed through a regular selection process.

5. Applicability of the Principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work':
The court referred to the judgment in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, which held that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' but without increments. The Petitioners, classified as 'permanent' but not 'regular', were similarly entitled to the minimum pay-scale without increments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, holding that the State Government had complied with the court's orders by fixing the Petitioners' pay at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. The Petitioners, classified as 'permanent' employees, were not entitled to increments, which are reserved for 'regular' employees. The court emphasized that previous erroneous grants of increments to some employees could not form the basis for similar claims by the Petitioners.

---