Pay inequality strikes at very foundation of human dignity, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has held that the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work would extend to temporary employees as well. The apex court’s Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde JJ also held that a denial of the same “constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position.”.The verdict was delivered in a batch of petitions filed by temporary employees working for state of Punjab seeking parity in wages with regular employees. They approached the apex court after Punjab and Haryana High Court held that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by them and the regular employees were similar..The Court strongly emphasised on the fact that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. .The Bench also noted, .“An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage.”.In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the Bench held it necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, as well as being qualitatively similar. If these parameters are met, parity can be claimed under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’..Read the judgment below.