TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Tribunal. 3. Factual background forming foundation of the subject matter of appeal is as follows: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') was working as a Stenographer Grade-II in the office of Geological Survey of India w.e.f. 4.1.1984. He was placed on the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 based on the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. There was dissatisfaction by several employees about the scales. A Board of Arbitration was constituted after agitation by some of the staff. It rejected the claim of absolute parity of pay scales of Stenographer Grade-II with that of Stenographer Grade C of the Central Secretariat. It was however recommended that the scale should be Rs. 1400-40--160O-50-2300-EB-60-2600. The Ministry of Finance (Department of expenditure) Issued OM 7(18)-E3/81 dated 4.5.1990 in this regard. On the basis of Office Memorandum dated 31.7.1990 of Department of Personnel and Training, with concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure revised scale of pay of Stenographer Grade 'C' in Central Secretariat Stenographer Service to RS. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 with effect from 1.1.19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heavier. Tribunal found fault with this conclusion. It was further noted that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers clearly indicate that the relevant aspects were not considered by the Commission and it proceeded oh a different basis. The Tribunal was of the view that Stenographer Grade-II should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 by applying the logic of equal pay for equal work. Challenge before the High Court was turned down as noted above. 4. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Tribunal's decision as well as the High Court's judgment proceeded on the concept of 'equal pay for equal work'. The said dicta cannot be used in the abstract. The Tribunal as well as the High Court proceeded on erroneous premises by holding that onus to prove non-application of the concept has to be on the employer. It was pointed out that it is really not so. On the contrary the person who asserts that he 14 entitled to 'equal pay for equal work' has to establish it. Merely because in some of the cases SLPs were dismissed that cannot be a ground to extend the benefit to the employees on the logic o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken as a recommendation made by the Government. Even otherwise a mere recommendation did not confer any right on the respondent to make such a claim for writ of mandamus." 7. Yet, in another decision In State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu (2002) IILLJ 829 SC a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, while dealing with the same principle, in para 16 has expressed that: "16. The principle of equal pay for equal work has been considered and applied in many reported decisions of this Court. The principle has been adequately explained and crystallized and sufficiently reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is wall settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matter listed in the preceding paragraph. To our mind, the observations of the Third CPC are as relevant today as they were at that point of time and we are not inclined to overlook them totally. In view of the above mentioned distinguishable feature, we do not concede the demand for absolute parity in regard to pay scales between stenographers in offices outside the secretariat and in the secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some petitioner Stenographers Grade II have got other benefit of parity in pay scale through courts. However, pursuing the policy enunciated by the Second CPC that disparity in the pay scale prescribed for stenographers in the Secretariat and the non-secretariat organizations should be reduced as far as possible, we are of the view that Stenographers Grade II should be placed in the existing pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 instead of Rs. 1400-300/Rs. 1400-2600." 9. Strangely, the Tribunal in the review petition came to hold that the Commission had not based its conclusion on any data. It is trite law that it is not open for any Court to sit in judgment as on appeal over the conclusion ....