The Karnataka High Court has affirmed that the constitutional principle of 'equal pay for equal work' overrides procedural technicalities in service matters, entitling a daily wage worker to the minimum regular pay scale despite an illegal termination and subsequent reinstatement delay. This ruling reinforces the duty of state employers to compensate workers fairly for identical duties, irrespective of employment status.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri Mohammad Javeed Mahmood, was appointed as a Daily Wage Graduate Civil Engineer at the Taluka Panchayat Samithi, Raichur, on 01.08.1986. His services were terminated without notice on 01.10.1987. He challenged this termination before the Labour Court, Gulbarga, under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, by order dated 08.04.2002, held that the termination amounted to illegal retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Act, as the petitioner had rendered continuous service for over 240 days in the preceding year. The Court directed reinstatement within four weeks. Despite this order, the petitioner was not reinstated until 19.12.2003 - over one and a half years later. He thereafter continued in service until superannuation on 30.06.2020.
Key Facts
- Petitioner appointed as Daily Wage Graduate Civil Engineer on 01.08.1986
- Illegal termination without notice on 01.10.1987
- Labour Court award dated 08.04.2002 directing reinstatement
- Writ petition filed by respondents challenging reinstatement dismissed on 03.06.2003
- Petitioner reinstated on 19.12.2003
- Petitioner submitted representations for regularization and monetary benefits on multiple occasions, including 22.08.2015 and 14.01.2016
- Respondents rejected regularization on grounds that petitioner had not completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 (per Government Order dated 13.11.2006)
- Petitioner was paid only Rs.238/- per day as per revised departmental schedule, despite pay revisions in 2007
- Petitioner attained superannuation on 30.06.2020
Procedural History
- 08.04.2002: Labour Court, Gulbarga, set aside termination and directed reinstatement
- 03.06.2003: High Court dismissed writ petition filed by respondents against Labour Court order
- 19.12.2003: Petitioner reinstated to duty
- 16.01.2017: Respondents issued communication rejecting regularization
- 13.04.2016: Respondents rejected petitioner’s representation for regularization and benefits
- 1409/2017: Petitioner filed application before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi
- 18.03.2021: CAT dismissed application, holding petitioner ineligible due to lack of 10 years continuous service as on 10.04.2006
- 20.03.2022: Writ Petition No.200201/2022 filed before Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench
- 11.03.2026: Case reserved for orders
- 28.04.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the CAT order dated 18.03.2021; (2) regularization of his service from 01.08.1986; (3) payment of arrears based on minimum pay scale under Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2007; and (4) interest on arrears from the date of superannuation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a daily wage worker, who performed the same duties as a regular employee and was reinstated after an illegal termination, is entitled to the minimum pay scale of the regular cadre under the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', even if the total continuous service as of the cutoff date (10.04.2006) falls short due to the employer’s own unlawful act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was engaged in the same duties as regular engineers and was treated as such for all practical purposes over 16 years post-reinstatement. He relied on State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh (2016) to argue that the principle of equal pay for equal work is a constitutional right under Articles 14 and 16, binding on all state authorities. He emphasized that the 17-month gap in service was caused solely by the respondents’ failure to comply with the Labour Court’s order, and the petitioner should not suffer for the state’s non-compliance. He further argued that the petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scale effective from 2007, which was granted to regular employees but denied to him.
For the Respondent
Counsel for respondents contended that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization under the Government Order dated 13.11.2006, which required 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006. They argued that the period between 01.10.1987 and 19.12.2003 was a break in service, and therefore the total qualifying service did not meet the threshold. They relied on Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka (2006) to assert that temporary appointments cannot be regularized unless statutory conditions are strictly met.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the respondents’ reliance on Uma Devi but distinguished its application. It held that Uma Devi governs regularization of irregular appointments, not the entitlement to fair wages for equal work. The Court emphasized that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not contingent on regularization status but on the nature of duties performed.
"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."
The Court noted that the petitioner was not merely performing similar duties - he was performing the exact duties of a regular Graduate Civil Engineer, under the same sanctioned post, for over 16 years after reinstatement. The termination in 1987 was illegal and the delay in reinstatement was entirely attributable to the respondents’ non-compliance with a binding judicial order. The Court held that it would be unjust to penalize the petitioner for the state’s failure to implement the Labour Court’s directive.
The Court further observed that the respondents had treated the petitioner as a regular employee in all respects except pay - assigning him duties, providing work orders, and retaining him for nearly two decades. The denial of the 2007 pay revision, which was granted to all regular employees in the cadre, constituted a clear violation of Article 14.
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s service was discontinuous. It held that the period of illegal termination must be disregarded for the purpose of wage entitlement, as it was a wrongful act of the employer. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not subject to the same rigid conditions as regularization under service rules.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 18.03.2021 was set aside. The respondents were directed to fix the petitioner’s pay scale at the minimum of the lowest grade in the regular pay scale under the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2007. The differential amount, calculated from the date of the 2007 pay revision until superannuation, must be credited to the petitioner’s account within three months of fixing the scale. The pay scale must be fixed within eight weeks of the judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Pay Is Not Dependent on Regularization
- Practitioners must now argue that wage parity under 'equal pay for equal work' is a standalone constitutional right, independent of regularization status
- Even if statutory conditions for regularization are unmet, courts must examine whether the employee performed identical duties as regular staff
- The burden shifts to the employer to justify differential pay when duties are identical
Employer’s Illegal Acts Cannot Defeat Employee Rights
- Delays or breaks in service caused by the employer’s failure to comply with judicial orders cannot be used to deny wage entitlements
- Courts will disregard unlawful termination periods when calculating service for wage purposes
- Petitioners in similar cases should cite Jagjit Singh to assert pay parity, even if service continuity is technically broken
Pay Revision Must Be Applied Retroactively
- When pay scales are revised for regular employees, temporary or daily wage workers performing the same duties must be granted the same revision
- Failure to do so constitutes discrimination under Article 14
- Arrears must be calculated from the effective date of the revision, not from the date of judgment
