STATE OF HARYANAversusDHARAMPAL, WATER PUMP OPERATOR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1306
- Decided
- 7 November 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The claim of casual workers for regularisation and equal pay is not sustainable; the appeals are allowed and the High Court orders are set aside.
Summary
The State of Haryana appealed against orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had granted regularisation and equal‑pay relief to a group of casual water‑pump operators led by Dharampal. The workers claimed that, on the principle of equal pay for equal work, they were entitled to be regularised and to receive parity in wages with permanent staff. The Supreme Court examined the claim in light of the earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, which held that such claims by casual workers are not sustainable under the Industrial Disputes Act. Relying on that precedent, the Court concluded that the workers were not entitled to regularisation or equal‑pay relief. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court judgments were set aside without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether casual workers are entitled to regularisation and parity in pay on the principle of equal pay for equal work under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the casual workers in the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
STATE OF HARYANA A
v.
DHARAMPAL, WATER PUMP OPERATOR AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] B
Labour Law:
Casual workers-Claim for regularisation and parity in pay on
the principle of equal pay for equal work-Held claim not sustainable C
-In view of the judgment in the case of Jasmer Singh these appeals
are allowed and the judgments and orders of the High Court are set
aside.
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., [1996) 11
sec 77, relied on. D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 14366-
69 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.95 of the Punjab and E
Haryana High Court in CW.P. Nos.16819 and 12803/93 and 16821 of
1995.
Rao Ranjit for Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Respondents. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
G
Leave granted.
For reasons set out in our judgment and order dated November 7,
1996 pronounced today in Civil Appeal No 14223of1996 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (CJ NO. 27150 of 1995) etc. etc., these appeals are also allowed H
599
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A and the judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside with no order
as to costs.
R.P. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.