STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V. JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS (2016)

Suman Kumari, Student, Banasthali Vidyapith

Introduction

The case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. is considered as a cornerstone in  labour and employment laws where the significant issue of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was addressed by the Supreme Court of India, ruling that temporary workers who are performing similar duties or holding same post would be entitled to remuneration comparable to those of regular employees. This case has since become significant precedent, advocating for equal treatment of temporary employees, wage parity & emphasizing the rights of temporary employees.

In this particular case, the main issue was whether daily-wage and temporary workers performing similar duties to regular employees are vested with the right to claim for wages same as regular employees under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution on the principle based of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

Facts of the Case

The Parties who were involved in this case were :

  • Jagjit Singh and other temporary workers as Plaintiffs and;
  • The State of Punjab and other public employers (who had provided employment to these temporary employees) as Defendants.

The relevant facts of the present case consists of the plaintiffs, who are temporary employees and daily-earners working under the different-different departments & offices of the Punjab Government, made claims that same duties & functions as regular engaged workers are exercised by them but they were paid significantly lower wages than regular employees. It was alleged by these temporary workers that this discrepancy infringed their right to equal pay based on the duties performed by them.

Earlier, the High Court heard the case on the plaint filed by the plaintiffs (temporary employees) and ruled in their favour which made the State of Punjab (Defendants) after they dissatisfied with the ruling, to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court State of Punjab, contending that temporary workers has no right to claim the same remuneration as regular employees.

Issues Raised 

1. Whether the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ be applicable on temporary workers engaged in same work as to those of regular workers.

2. Whether discrimination in wages with temporary workers based on their employment status contravenes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, in which the right to equality is guaranteed.

This landmark case serves as a legal benchmark for upcoming cases based on wage parity as it underscores the need for equitable treatment of temporary workers which extends beyond contractual status to the nature of the duty performed in order to affirm temporary workers’ rights in India and also to ensure that the existing systemic inequality in pay has been addressed.

Arguments 

Plaintiff’s Contention 

• The workers were paid on a daily basis at a wage that was disclosed to them. It is not that the agreed-upon wage was not paid.

• Daily wage workers constitute a class by themselves. Thus, they cannot claim that they are treated differently against regular employees hired based on the applicable rules.

• Assertion that a person employed on a daily pay should be treated equally to a regular employee systematically hired and given a permanent position in the company, cannot be supported.

• Temporary employees are not appointed on any sanctioned posts. Hence, they cannot get benefits of regularisation. 

Defendant’s Contention

• When employees perform equal work, there is no reason why they cannot be entitled to minimum of the wage scale merely because they are not regular employees.

• This would be violation of Article 14 of the Indian constitution, since there is no intelligible differentia bearing nexus to this classification. This classification is unreasonable.

• It would also amount to violation of Article 166 and would fail the goal set out in Article 38 (2) and 39(d).

• Paying less than minimum wages to temporary workers while regular employees enjoy higher wages for similar work, is exploitation.

Court’s Judgement 

The decision of the High Court was upheld by the Apex Court and it was ruled that temporary workers have the right to claim for wages same as regular workers if they’re engaged in the similar work. The Supreme Court held that it’s the duty of the State to make provisions for wages parity and denial of equal pay based solely on status of employment undermines the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14.

It was noted by the Court that allowing disparities in wages between temporary and permanent workers when identical duties performed by them is unconstitutional. It was emphasized that the ‘equal pay for equal work’ doctrine is enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which advocates for the fair compensation which shall be determined by the nature & duties of the job rather than the employment terms.

Legal Reasoning

The focus of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court was on the interpretation of Article 14 (right to equality). It was reinforced that it will be unjustified if wage disparities occur based solely on employment terms when similar duties are performed by both sets of workers. The Court emphasized that this principle of constitutional equality mandates equal remuneration for equal work for all workers, regardless of their employment status and any violation of this needs a compelling explanation.

In this case, a series of precedents were referred in interpreting Art. 14 such as:

  • Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) – In this case, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was established by the Court, highlighting that this principle applies to temporary and casual workers also.
  •  In D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1982), the scope of Article 14 was widened, establishing that discrimination on the basis of employment terms is unconstitutional. 
  • The Court in Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. & Ors. (1986) underscored that the right to equality extends to the fair remuneration to employees irrespective of the employment terms.
  • In Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. (1989) the court held that pay disparities are permissible only if there is a significant difference in the nature of the work and duties of the employees. 

Analysis

This case’s decision proved to be crucial in Indian Labour law which filled the gaps between the temporary and regular workers, advocating the need for wages parity, equality and fair treatment in the workplace that resonates the constitutional values of India. However, this decision also highlights the enforcement challenges in sector with highly employed temporary workers and to strengthen this precedent, more comprehensive model is needed for ensuring compliance.

This case has removed unambiguity regarding equal pay doctrine applicability to temporary workers and ensures that all workers get equal remuneration irrespective of their status of employment. A foundation for eliminating wage disparities, promoting equitable treatment was also provided by this ruling. However, the decision faced difficulties regarding its implementation in informal and temporary employment sectors where they are paid lower wages.

An alternative decision could have involved an adjustment & increment in the remuneration  for temporary employees, which might have allowed employers to adapt gradually. Though, that approach could have diluted the ruling’s impact on immediate wage parity. 

Conclusion

This case is a milestone Indian Labour jurisprudence as in it the Apex Court of the India re-establish the equal pay for equal work doctrine and enshrined ay parity as constitutional right for daily-wagers and temporary workers. Furthering the cause for social justice, this ruling promotes equality across employment types.

The labour laws of India strengthened by this landmark decision, establishing the wage parity and equitable treatment among the temporary and permanent employees. It has made a way for more structured labour reforms, highlighting the determination of remuneration based on their contributions rather than their employment status.

References 

Scroll to Top