AIR INDIA LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Air India Limited (AIL?) challenges an Award dated 4 th March 1991 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT?) holding that the workmen represented by the Air India Workers? Union (AIWU?), Respondent No. 2, appointed on casual basis were entitled to the same wages as payable to their regularly appointed counterparts from the date of their initial appointment on the principle of equal pay for equal work?.

(2.) Notice in the present writ petition was issued on 19 th June 1991. By an order dated 21 st April 1992 while directing rule to issue, this Court stayed para 20 of the impugned Award insofar as it granted relief to the workmen retrospectively subject further to the condition that in case the writ petition was dismissed, the Petitioner would pay the workmen such interest on the delayed amount as maybe ordered by the court. At one stage the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22 nd February 2001. Thereafter the Petitioner filed CM No. 9757 of 2009 for restoration of the writ petition. By a detailed order dated 26 th February 2010, this Court condoned the delay in filing the application for restoration and recalled the order dated 22 nd February 2001, dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution and restored the writ petition to its original number subject to the Petitioner paying Rs. 10,000/- as costs to Respondent No. 2. The interim order dated 21 st April 1992 was also restored.

(3.) Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that the very basis on which CGIT had proceeded to treat casual workmen and regularly appointed workmen on the same footing for the purposes of application of the principle of equal pay for equal work? is legally flawed. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, 2003 1 SCC 250, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003 3 LLJ 487, Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Aziz Ahmad, 2009 2 SCC 606 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, 2008 10 SCC 1, it is submitted that simply performing the same tasks or duties as those regularly employed, would not entitle the casual workers to parity of pay with regular employees.