Supreme Court Upholds Jal Nigam Circular on Employment Eligibility

The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, upholding the validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015. The Court ruled that the petitioners could not claim reinstatement or regular appointment without meeting eligibility conditions and clarified that the "equal pay for equal work" doctrine did not apply. Services of already engaged workmen remained unaffected by the order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 07.09.2015.
2. Reinstatement and regularization of retrenched workmen.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work."
4. Validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015.
5. Contempt of Court for non-compliance with reinstatement orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 07.09.2015:
The Supreme Court's order dated 07.09.2015 was based on a concession that the respondents-workmen would be taken on daily wage basis as per the office order dated 07.04.2015. The Court recorded that the names of the respondents-workmen were included in the list, and the special leave petitions were disposed of accordingly. The petitioners later alleged non-compliance with this order, leading to the filing of contempt petitions. However, the Court found no specific and categorical direction for reinstatement in the order dated 07.09.2015, and thus, the petitioners could not claim reinstatement based on impressions.

2. Reinstatement and regularization of retrenched workmen:
The petitioners sought reinstatement and regularization against vacant Group D posts, arguing that they had worked for more than 240 days and should be reinstated as per the previous High Court orders. The Court noted that the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015, issued in compliance with Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, maintained a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as and when the necessity arises. The Court emphasized that the petitioners could not claim regular appointment against Group D posts without fulfilling the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules.

3. Applicability of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work":
The petitioners relied on judgments such as State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh and State of Punjab & Others v. Jagjit Singh to argue for equal pay for equal work. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that they dealt with temporarily engaged employees performing the same duties as regular employees, which was not the case here. The Court reiterated that 240 days of continuous service does not entitle a workman to permanent status, and reinstatement would restore the workman to the same status held at termination, subject to availability of such posts.

4. Validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015:
The circular dated 07.04.2015 was issued to comply with the High Court's directions and maintained a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as per seniority when the need arose. The Court found this circular to be in line with Section 6Q of the Act and held that the order dated 07.09.2015 was passed based on this circular. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that they accepted the order under the impression of reinstatement, as the order clearly stated engagement as per seniority and future necessity.

5. Contempt of Court for non-compliance with reinstatement orders:
The petitioners alleged contempt for non-compliance with the reinstatement orders. The Court, however, found no wilful disobedience by the Jal Nigam, as there was no specific direction for reinstatement in the order dated 07.09.2015. The Court dismissed the contempt petitions, stating that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked based on impressions when the Court's order did not contain any direction for reinstatement or regular pay scale. The Court also noted that 61 petitioners were not parties in the original special leave petitions and thus could not claim grievance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, finding no merit in the claims of non-compliance with the order dated 07.09.2015. The Court upheld the validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015 and emphasized that the petitioners could not claim reinstatement or regular appointment without fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions. The Court also clarified that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was not applicable in this case. The services of the workmen already engaged were not affected by this order.

---