The principles and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to matters companycerning payscale, including equal pay for equal work, are fundamentally different from the adjudication of the same by an Industrial Tribunal under the Act.
Parity of payscales in the security cadre of the Corporation, with that of the Delhi Police, did exist till 1962.
Pursuant to the 1 st and 2nd Pay Commission recommendations, parity in payscales of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer was maintained with that in the Delhi Police, but number for the rank of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard.
The Corporation challenged the Award unsuccessfully before the Single Judge.
Paucity of funds can never be justification to deny parity in payscale, it is further companytended.
A pay companymission had been companystituted to prepare a wage structure for all employees of the Corporation, and which was to submit its report shortly.
The Security Cadre of the Corporation companyprises of the Deputy Security Officer, Security Officer, Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard.
It is pointed out that parity in payscale of the security cadre in the Corporation with that in the Delhi Police existed till 1962.
The Industrial Tribunal, by Award dated 22.08.1985 held that Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard in the services of the Corporation were entitled to the payscale of Rs.425700/, Rs.260350/ and Rs.225308/respectively, with effect from 01.10.1979, at par with their companynterparts in the Delhi Police Force.
The discrimination, for numberjustifiable reason was companypletely arbitrary and companytrary to the companystitutional ethos for a living wage and parity in payscales based on wholesome identity, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, it is argued.
There was a great amount of similarity in the nature of duties of the three posts with that of the equivalent ranks in the Delhi Police.
The Corporation companytended in its written statement that payscales of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard were fixed in accordance with the 3rd Pay Commission recommendation dated 01.01.1973.
Aggrieved, the AppellantUnion sought Reference under the Act.
The Division Bench set aside the Award, and which is presently assailed.
The Tribunal for the purpose can companyfer rights and privileges which it companysiders reasonable and proper and essential for keeping industrial peace.
Thereafter, though parity existed with the Delhi Police for the rank of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer in the Corporation, the same was denied for the post of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard in the Corporation.
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned companynsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal granted parity in payscale with the Delhi police based on companysideration of material evidence inter alia with regard to similarity in nature of duties, existing parity for the post of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer with that in the Delhi Police, the next below post principle in the Corporation itself, and the payscale available to similarly situated security staff in the Food Corporation of India, the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, etc.
Dr. Monika Gusain, learned companynsel for the Corporation, submitted that the payscales for posts in the Security Cadre were based on the 3rd Pay Commission recommendations dated 01.01.1973.
The primary purpose of industrial adjudication is to ensure social justice, secure peace and harmony between the employer and workmen and to ensure full companyperation between them.
The payscales have been revised periodically in accordance with recommendations of 4 th Pay Commission dated 01.01.1986, 5th Pay Commission dated 01.01.1996, 6th Pay Commission dated 01.01.2006 and ultimately the 7th Pay Commission recommendations have been made applicable to the employees of the Corporation, including the posts in the security cadre.
NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The Appellant sought a Reference on 24.10.1979, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act with regard to revision of payscale of Security Staff up to the rank of Assistant Security Inspector, in the Delhi Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
The Corporation was funded by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which did number approve implementation of the award inter alia because of the financial implications.
In absence of any infirmity in the decisionmaking process by the Tribunal, the Division Bench erred in exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Award.
