Holding

The principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply because there is no comparable employment, and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Grih Kalyan Kendra, a welfare society under the Ministry of Home Affairs, employed regular staff on deputation and ad‑hoc workers paid only honorarium or piece‑rate without pension or provident fund. The workers' union filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that the Kendra is a 'State' within Article 12 and that its ad‑hoc employees are entitled to equal pay, pension, gratuity and provident fund on par with employees of the New Delhi Municipal Committee, Delhi Administration and Union of India. The respondents argued that the Kendra is a unique entity, its employees are not comparable to those in the other departments, and therefore the principle of equal pay for equal work does not arise. The Supreme Court, relying on the earlier report of Former Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud which found no comparable employment and recommended a graded honorarium increase, held that there is no discrimination and the equal‑pay principle is inapplicable. Consequently, the petition for equal pay and related benefits was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Grih Kalyan Kendra qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work (Articles 14, 16, 39(d)) applies to the ad‑hoc employees of the Kendra in comparison with employees of NDMC, Delhi Administration and Union of India.
Whether there is discrimination in pay, pension, gratuity and provident fund for the Kendra's employees.
Whether the petition can be entertained after the earlier decision and report of the Former Chief Justice.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 39(d)
Societies Registration Act, 1960

Subjects

Equal pay for equal workArticle 12State instrumentalitySocietiesWrit petitionArticle 32DiscriminationPay parityPensionGratuityPublic welfare society

Judgment

GRIH KAL YAN KENDRA WORKERS' UNION
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JANUARY 9, 1991

[K.N. SINGH AND N.D OJHA, JJ.] B

Constitution of India 1950-Articles 14 and 16--c-Equal pay for
equal work-Principle-Grih Kalyan Kendra employees-Treatment
, on par with employees of Union of India, New Delhi Municipal Com-
,l , mittee and Delhi Administration-Whether arises.

Grih Kalyan Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies c
Registration Act 1960. It is a welfare organization working under the
aegis of the Department of Personnel and .Administrative Reforms,
Ministry of Home Affairs. Its object is to establish Kendras to help
needy Government servants especially those belonging to the lower
income group by providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful D
1 work and training during their leisure time so that the dependents of
such .Government servants may be able to supplement to the meagre
income of the family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining
employment elsewhere. In furtherance of this object, the Kendra has
set up nursery centres, craft centres, and creches etc ..in Delhi and other
cities where the work of imparting necessary training is carried on. The E
management of the Kalyan Kendras vests in the Board which consists
of officers of the Department of Personnel and in order to augment its
resources the Ministry gives grant to the Kendras. The terms and

- conditions or tenure of service of its employees have not been regulated
by any Rules framed by the Kendra. The staff of the Kendras fall in
two categories viz. (i) regular staff taken on deputation from other
central government offices who draw their salaries in regular scales of
pay with the deputation and other allowances as admissible_to the cent-
F

ral government employees and (ii) employees employed at the various
centres of the Kendra on ad-hoc basis, some of whom have been work-
ing an f"~ed salary called honorarium while others are working on the
piece rate wages, without any gratuity or pension or Provident Fund. G

The workers' Union of the Kendra has f"ded this writ petition for
a declaration that the Kendra wherein the workers are employed is a
'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and such it
\ is prayed by them that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the
respondents to pay regular PaY scale on par with other employees H

15
•
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

performing similar work under the Union of India, New Delhi Munici-
A pal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi Administration, as
according to them the wages paid to them are low as compared to the ~
employees performing identical duties in the said Departments. Their
contention is that the Kendra being a 'State', the respondents are
· under constitutional obligation to pay them higiJer scale of pay pre-
B scribed for the Government Departments, on the principle "equal pay
for equal work". They have raised claim to pension, gratuity and pro-
vident fund etc. also. The respondents contest their claim on the plea
that the employees working in tbe Kendra are not regular employees /
and the duties performed by theJD are not comparable to any of the
-- ' employees working under NDMC or any other DEPARTMENT OF
~
THE Delhi Administration or Union of India, the Status of the Kendra
c being unique.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court,

HELD: There being no other Government or semi-Government '(
D employees who can be regarded, even broadly, as being situated simi-
larly as tbe employees of the Kendra, the principle of equal pay for
equal work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of mere
honorarium to these employees, [27E)

The fmdlngs recorded by the former Chief Justice to whom the
E matter was referred earlier clearly shows that there has been no .~
discrimination as the petitioners are not being discriminated from those

-
wbQ are situated equally, The petitioner's claim for the benefit of
eqµal pay for equal wor~, therefore must fall. Their claim for the
issue of direction to the respondents to provide for the pension,
gratuity and provident fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan must
F also fail. [27H; 28A-B]
~
I
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of '---(
...
India and Ors., {1979] 3 SCC 489; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors., [1984] 2 ·sec 141; B.S. Minhas v. Indian
Statistical Institute and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 582; Bihar State Harijan
G Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India and Ors., [1985] 2 S.C.C. 644; Surya
Narain Yadav & Ors. v. Bthar State Elei:tricity Board and Others, [1985]
3 SCC 38; Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [198i] 1 SCC 618; Daily
Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union of 'r
.India, (1988] 1SC~122; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., [1986] 1
SCC 637, Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor,
ft Delhi Administration, [1987) 4 SCC 505; Bhagwan Dass v, State of

•
WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 17

Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of Haryana, [1988] 3 SCC
_)_ 354; Dharwad District P. W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Asso- A
ciation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Others, [1990] 2 SCC 396;
~ Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v.
Union of India, [1989] 3 SCC I, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION;Writ Petition No. 869 of 1988. B
;
,l. (Undet Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
·,,

Govind Mukhoty, Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalitha Kaushik for
the Petitioner.

V.C. Mahajan, Girish Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the c
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
l
SINGH, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution D
of India, filed by the petitioner Union on behalf of the employees of
the Grih Kalyan Kendra for a declaration that the Grih Kalyan Kendra
wherein the workers are employed is 'State' within_ the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution and for the issuance of a writ of

• mandamus directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay
regular pay scales in parity with other employees performing similar
work under the Union of India like New Delhi Municipal Committee
and other Departments of Delhi Administration.
E

Grih Kalyan Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act 1860. Its objectives as set out in the Memorandum of
;..:, Association are as follows: F
r "(a) To promote social, economic, cultural and educa-
tional activities for the betterment of the Central Govern-
ment employees and their families;

(b) To impart technical and vocational training in home G
crafts and other house-hold arts for useful utilisation of
•<. ..............
~
leisure time; and

(c) To organise and promote economic activities that may
provide opportunities for gainful employment to families of
Central Government employees for supplementing family H
incomes."
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

For attaining the aforesaid objectives, the Kendra has been conducting
A various activities including; (i) holding of craft classes for training in ~
cutting, tailoring and embroidering for the house-wives and grown-up
girls during their leisure hours; (ii) imparting nursery education for
children in the age group of 3 to 7 years; (iii) running of creches or
day-care centres for children between the age of 90 days and 7 years;
B (iv) providing the recreational facilities like T.V. shows, libraries,
gymnasi,a and in-door games and sports at the samaj sadans (Com-
munitr Halls); (") con_cfucting_stitching of liveries for Class III (Group ,)....
C) and Class IV (Group D) employees of Government Departments -
and Putllic Sector Undertakings. The Kendra runs 29 nursery centres,
out oj ~hich 21 are in Delhi, 3 in Deh!adun and one each at Faridabad, ~
Nagpur, Jaipur, Bombay and Madras. It also runs 43 crafts centres,
c out of which 23 are in Delhi, 5 in, Bombay, 8 in Madras, 2 in Dehradun
and one each at Jaipur, Nagpur, Faridabad, Narela and Bahadurgarh.
The Kendra also runs 19 centres for day-care called creches out of
which 16 are in Delhi and one each at Faridabad, Madras and Jaipur.
The Kendra conducts two production centres, o~e located at Delhi and T
D the ·other at Madras. In these centres stitching of liveries for Class III
and Class IV employees of Government Departments and Public
Sector Undertakings are undertaken with a view to provide gainful
employment for dependent ladies members of the Government
servants.
~
E The Gi;ih Kalyan Kendra is a welfare organisation working under
the aegis of the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs. The purpose and object of
establishing the Kendras were to help needy Government servants
especially those belonging to the lower income group by providing to
their dependents opportunity of gainful work or training during their
p leisure time. The scheme stipulated to ensure that the dependents of ..,.~
such Government servants should be able to supplement to meagre .....__,,.
income of the family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining :.
employment elsewhere. Initially, the employees of Kendra were paid
honorarium only and at no time they had any regular scales of pay.
Some of the employees who work at the Centres are paid on piece rate
G basis. The control and management of the Kendras vest in a Board
which consist of officers of the Department of Personnel. The Union
of India supplements the income_ of the Kendras by providing grants --,-.
and monetary support. The employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra fall
in two broad categories; (i) regular staff taken on deputation from
otheir Central Government offices who draw their salaries in regular
H scale ~f pay_ alongwith the deputation and other allowances as admissi-
WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 19

bfe to the Central Government employees; (ii) employees employed at
J the various centres of the Kendra on ad-hoc basis some of whom have A
been working on fixed salary called honorarium while others are work-
ing on the piece rate wages at the production centres without there
being any provision for any scale of pay and other benefits like,
gratuity, pension, provident fund etc. The terms and conditions of
tenure of service have not been regulated by any Rules framed by the B
Kendra. The services of the employees falling in the second category
i are terminable at any time at the sweet will of the officers of the
~
..l .,
Kendras.

The petitioner has asserted that the employees of the Kendra are
__.,.... paid low wages and their salaries are far less than what is paid to the
employees doing similar nature of work in the organisations like c
NDMC and other Departments of the Delhi Administration. It is
asserted that the Kendra is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution and therefore the respondents are under constitu-
1 tional obligation to prescribe similar scales of pay as applicable to the
employees of NDMC and Delhi Administration and who are doing the D
same work as performed by the employees of the Kendra. The
petitioner has claimed relief for declaring the Kendra to be an instru-
i mentality of State and for the issue of a direction directing the respon-
dents to pay equal pay as paid to the similar employees doing similar
work in NDMC and oher Departments of Delhi Administration, along
/-- with other benefits like gratuity, pension and provident fund. The E
petitioner's claim for equal pay as paid to the ernployees of NDMC
and Delhi Administration is contested by the respondents. In the
...... counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is asserted that
the Grih Kalyan Kendra was started as a welfare society with the aim
of helping the needy Government servants especially those belonging.
~ to lower income group by providing to their dependents opportunity ·of F
gainful work, so that, they might be able. to supplement the meagre
J income of their family and at the same time they may also gain skill
and experience in order to improve their career elsewhere. Grih
Kalyan Kendra was expected to be a stepping stone for such depen-
dents of the poor Government servants and there was no intention to
provide them with any regular employment. It is further stated that in G
the nature of things and in consonance with original aim the emp-
.
-·--· loyees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra were expected to leave the organisa-
tion once they have acquired skill and experience and seek other
opportunity of employment for the betterment of their career else-
where. The employees of the Kendra were expected to leave the
organisation once they lost ·the status of dependent of low paid H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] I S.C.R.

Government employees. However, the employees of the Kendra have
A not met any of these expectations. Some of the employees once
inducted into the organisation have continued for a number of years.
The employees working in the Kendra are not regular employees and
the duties performed by them are not comparable to any of the emp-
loyees working under NDMC or any Department of Delhi Administra-
B tion or under the Union of India. The status of the Kendra is a unique
one where the work and duties performed by its employees are quite
different in nature than those performed by the employees of NDMC
and Delhi Administration.

Shri Govind Mukhoty learned counsel for the petitioner con-
tended that though. the Grih Kalyan Kendras are managed by the
c Board as contemplated by the Rules of the Registered Societies, the -
Union of India h~ve the pervasive control over its functions, it is an .-
instrumentality and agency of the Union Government and therefore it
is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He
placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. r
D International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3 SCC 489;
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCC
141; B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., [1983] 4 SCC
582; Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.,
[ 1985] 2 SCC 644 and Surya Narain Yadav & Ors. v. Bihar State Electri-
city l}oard & Ors., (1985] 3 SCC 38. We do not think it necessary to
E consider this question in detail as in our opinion given op an. assump- ~
tion that the Grih Kalyan Kendra is an instrumentali(y of a State
within th¢ meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the petitio-
ners are entitled to enforce their fyndamental rights against it, it is ,....
difficult to uphold this contention that the respondents have violated
any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. We accordingly pro-
F ceed on the assumption that the Grih Kalyan kendra is a State for the °"1"4
purposes of Chapter IV of the Constitution and consequently this ·
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable and the\
petitionerscare entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the
enforcement of their fundamental right founded on the principle of
equal pay for equal work.
G
Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Con-
stitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles
of State Policy as contained in Article 39( d) of the Constitution "Equal
pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in
service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of
H equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal
WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 21

work and providing security for service by regularising casual employ-
A
men.t within a reasonable period has been accepted by this Court as a
constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be a judge
made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which
ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal
opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed
employees of the State .. This Court has zealously enforced the funda- B
mental right to equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitu-
tfona1 goal of equaHty and social -justiceTn a number of decisions. See:
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 1 SCC 618; Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union of India,

...
[1988] 1 SCC 122; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986] 1 SCC
637; Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD, [1986] 1 SCC 639;
R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor Delhi Administration, [1987] 4 SCC 505
c
Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, (1987] 4 SCC 634; Jaipal v. State of
Haryana, (1988] 3 SCC 354 and Dharwad District P. W.D. Literate
Daily Wage Employees Association & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 396. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal
work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is D
applicable to its full vigour.

The question then arises whether the respondents have practised
discrimination in denying the employees of the Kendra pay which the
Union of India has been paying to other similarly placed employees
doing the same or similar work. This question is of primary importance E
which requires investigation of facts. Unless, it is demonstrated that
the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra are discriminated in matters
relating to pay and other emoluments with the other similarly placed
employees, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be
applied. While considering this question, it is not necessary to find out
similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable F
similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties, the qualifica-
tion and the quality of work performed by them. It is permissible to
have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay scale,
value of work and responsibility and experience. The classification
must, however, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise G
Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988] 3 SCC 91. Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J. (as he then was) observed:

"There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability
and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the
responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that H

.
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is
A 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, reasonable or an intelligible criteria which
has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
B differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is
important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work if a
concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it
follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a
negation of that right."

Elaborating the aforesaid observation the learned Judge further
r
c observed thus:

''The same amount of physical work may entail different
quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more
tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of emp-
D loyment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be
translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational
nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before
a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative
authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scaJe has to
be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the
E court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or
based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in

p
fact."

The petit10ners have referred to the scale of pay paid to the
similar employees of NDMC and Delhi Development Authority under
the Delhi Administration for the various employees to demonstrate ~.
-
that the employees of the Kendra are being discriminated as they are ~-rJ
paid lower amount of salary although they perform the same duties
and functions as performed by corresponding employees holding
corresponding posts under the NDMC and Delhi Administration. The
chart as set out in the petition is as under: ·
G
S. No. Designation GKK Salaries per month
NDMC DDA/C. Govt.
'!

H 1. Incharge Creche 788 1139 1380
"
WORKERS' UNION v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 23

2. Creche Attendants 758 1139 1139
A
_) 3. Creche Ayahs 592 792 792
4. Craft Teachers 786 1260 1444
5. Nursery Teachers 712 1260 1260
6. Nursery Ayahs 430 792 792 B
7. Office Incharge
.l
I of Crech Centre etc. 1140
8. Office Asstt. /Typist 880 1140
") 9. i) Cutters (Tailors) 1140

-- -
ii) Stitchers (Checker) 870
iii) Drivers 565
1140
1140
c

,..,, iv) Peons 1140
I
v) Chowkidars 750 792
D
10. Sweepers 225

In 1984 the employees filed Writ Petition No. 13924 of 1984 in
this Court claiming relief for the payment of wages on the principle of
equal pay for equal work, seeking parity with the employees ofNDMC
and other Departments of Delhi Administration and Union of India. E
Since, the matter involved investigations of facts, this Court with a view

-
to find out as to which other employees similarly situated were paid
more than the employees working in the Kendra and also to ascertain
whether the principle of equal pay for equal work was being violated
by the Kendra, on the suggestion of the parties referred the matter to

• Former Chief Justice Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, for his report and
recommendation. The Court requested the Former Chief Justice to
make recommendations taking into account the following matters:
F

"l. Whether other similarly situated employees (engaged
in similar comparable work, putting in comparable hours of
work, in a comparable employment) are paid higher pay G
and if so what should be the entitlement of the complaining
employees in order not to violate the equal pay for equal
-.·
' work principle;

2. If there is no other comparable employment, whether
the remuneration of the complaining employees aeserves ti
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

A to be revised on the ground that their remuneration is
unconscionable or unfair and if so to what extent. \
,...) ...,_

3. The organisation is not disabled from continuing its
benign motivity and even extending it.''
B
Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the parties including the
petitioners appeared before the Former Chief Justice. After hearing
the parties and considering the entire material placed before him, the
Former Chief Justice submitted an elaborate report to the Court mak-
ing comprehensive suggestions. The respondents to the writ petition
agreed to implement the recommendations made by the Former Chief (r-
c Justice. Thereupon, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated
6th May 1988 stating that the employees of the Kendra are entitled to
the benefits recommended in the Report of the Former Chief Justice.
.....
'

In order to appreciate the controversy, we consider it necessary to
refer to the concluding part of the Report which contains the recom-
mendations, it is as follows:
D
"Having given a careful thought to these unusual consi-
derations, I am of the opinion that until such time as the
Government formulates a new scheme for giving an orderly
shape to the Kendra so that, by the application of a rational
policy the remuneration of the Kendra employees could be
E
fixed on a fair basis, ari ad-hoc method of stepping up their
meagre ronorarium should be adopted, linked to the
length of service put in by the employees. No other test

F
seems feasible since, especially, the Kendra employees are
not prohibited from taking any other employment, they are
not recruited through an open competition, there is no age
-
bar for their recruitment or retirement and since, being
dependents of Government servants, they are eligible in
that capacity for receiving other benefits like free medical
aid and leave travel concessions. In view of these circums-
. tances, to place the Kendra employees on par with other
employees would be treating unequals as equals which
G
would conceivably draw a constitutional challenge.

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the
employees of the Kendra belonging to category (b) des-
cribed earlier in.this Report should be paid a fixed monthly
H honorarium according to the following scale:
WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] . 25

L Employees who have put in a service of 20 years or more A
_) should be paid 100% (one hundred per cent) more of the
honorarium which is paid to them at present.

2. Employees who have put in a service of 15 to 20 years
.should be paid 90% (ninety per cent) more of the
honorarium which is paid to them at present. B•

3. Employees who have put in a service of 10 to 15 years
should be paid 80% (eighty per cent) more of the
honorarium which is paid to them at present.

4. Employees. who have put in a service of 5 to 10 years
should be paid 70% (seventy per cent) more of the C
honorarium which is paid to them at present.

5. Employees who have put in a service of l _to 5 years
should be paid 60% (sixty per cent) more of the honora-
tium which is paid to them at present. D

These recommendations should operate retrospec-
tively with effect from· 1st August 1986, being the date on
which the Supreme Court passed its order referring the
matter to me. The delay in making these recommendations
is not due to any default on the part of the employees. The E
employees of the Kendra of the (b) categor)' should be paid
arrears of honorarium upon the revised basis, before 3 lst
October, 1987."

The Court accepted the Report of the Former Chief Justice and
disposed of the petition on a statement made on behalf of the respon- F
dents that they would implement the recommendations made in the
Report of the Former Chief Justice. There is no dispute that the
recommendations made by the Former Chief Justice have been
implemented and the employees of the Kendra are being paid remu-
neration accordingly. The Former Chief Justice's recommendation for
ad-hoc method of stepping up of honorarium until such time as the G
Government formulates a new scheme for giving orderly shape of the
Kendra has been accepted by the respondents and a Sub-Committee
has been set up by the Grih Kalyan Kendra Board to review the
organisational and operational arrangements in the Kendra .at the
headquarters and in the cities and to suggest measures for the
improvement of its functioning. The Committee has been directed H
0
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

with reference to the original objectives of Kendra of imparting skills
A to a .steady st.ream of dependents of Government employees and to
make suggestions for making further improvements. The Committee
has not yet submitted its report. We hope and trust that the Committee
will submit its report and the Grih Kalyan Kendra will take steps to
improve the functioning of the Kendras including the remuneration of.
B its employees.

In the instant writ petition the petitioners have raised precisely
the same question as raised in the earlier Writ Petition 13924 of 1984. >-
Their grievance of discrimination in matters relating to payment of
scale of pay and other emoluments was examined in the earlier writ
c petition and the Former Chief Justice held that there was no employ-
ment comparable to the employment held under the Grih Kalyan
Kendra and therefore they could not seek parity with other employees
working under NDMC or the Delhi Administration or Union of India.
--
We consider it necessary to refer to the relevant part of the Report of
the Former Chief Justice, which is as under: T
D
"The first consideration which I am required by the
• Supreme Court to take into account is "whether other simi-
larly situated eJllployees (engaged in similar comparable
work, putting in comparable hours of work, in a compar-
able employment) are paid a higher pay and as to what
E should be the entitlement of the complaining employees in
order not to violate the equal pay for equal work principle."

The facts and the statistical data set out above will
show that the employment in the Kendra is unique in
.character, that is to say, it is not comparable with any other
-
employment . .Its motivation and genesis coupled with the
absence of rules governing service conditions elude even a
broad comparison between the employees of the Kendra
and· the employees of other organisations holding some-
what similar posts, that is, posts bearing similar duties and
designation. It is difficult to conceive of any other service
G whic.h one can enter at any age, regardless of educational
qualifications, and from which one can retire when one
chooses. It is something like '·come if you like, go when
you please". Since there is no other employment which can
bear a reasonable comparison with employment in the
service of the Kendra, it is difficult to perceive employees
H similarly situated as those in the service of the Kendra.
WORKERS' UNION v. U.O.I. [SINGH, J.] 27
Therefore, the fact that those other employees may be
A
J-. drawing higher pay will not justify the conclusion that the
employees of the Kendra of Category (b ), with whom alone
we are concerned, are denied the benefit of the principle
"Equal pay for equal work". It is trite that the concept of
· equality implies and requires equal treatment for those
who are situated equally. One cannot draw comparisons B
. between unequals. If the facts of a given case fail to
I establish that persons who are aggrieved are not situated
-~ equally with others, the benefits available to those others
cannot ipso facto be given to the former though, of course,
·-·) the question as to whether persons are situated equally has

..... to be determined by the application of broad and reason-
able tests and not by the application of a mathematical c
formula of exactitude. Try howsoever as one may be apply-
ing broad and reasonable criteria, the conclusion is ines-
capable that there are no other employment comparable to
the employment in the (b) category of the Kendra, that
means that the aggrieved employees are not situated simi- D
larly as any others.

This then is my answer to the first question referred
by the Supreme Court for my consideration. Putting it.
briefly, there being no other Government or semi-Govern-
.?-,
ment employees who can be regarded, even broadly, as E
being situated similarly as the employees of the Kendra

- with whom we are concerned, the principle of equal pay for
equal work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of
mere honorarium to these employees."

The above findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice are findings F
)"\
of facts founded on the material placed before him by the parties.
r·~
These findings were accepted by this Court and the writ petition was
accordingly disposed of by an order dated 6th May 1988. Now it is not

- open to th'-' petitioners to reopen the same question by means of the
present writ petition. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioners an attempt was made to dispute the findings recorded
by the Former Chief Justice but in fairness, Shri Govind Mukhoty
G
made a candid statement before us during the course of the arguments
-...,;
that the findings of the Former Chief Justice are not disputed. The
findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice clearly show that there
has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not being discri-
minated from those who are situated equally. The petitioners' claim fl
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

A for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, th~refore must fail.

Since the petitioner's claim for parity, in pay with regard to ·the
employees working in the New Delhi~unicipal Committee and other
Departments of the Delhi Administration and Union of India has
failed, their claim for the issue Of direction to the respondents· to
B
provide for the pension, gratuity and provident fund for the employees
of the Grih Kalyan Kendra must also fail.

In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.

Y. Lal Petition dismissed .
.....

-