KAMLESH AJITRAI TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner No.1-Shri Kamlesh Ajitrai Trivedi is working as a Clerk in the office of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The petitioner No.2 is serving as an Office Superintendent in the same office. The payscale of the clerks working in the Labour Court of the State is Rs. 1200-2040 and that of the Office Superintendent is Rs. 1400-2600. The payscale of the Clerks and the Office Superintendents who are working in the office of the Industrial Court are Rs. 1400-2300 and Rs.1640-2900 respectively. So comparing the aforesaid two payscales it is clear that the payscale of the Clerks and the Office Superintendents who are working in the Industrial Court are higher than the payscale of the Clerks and the Office Superintendents working in the Labour Court. The petitioners have come up with the case that the Clerks and the Office Superintendents working in the Labour Courts and those working in the Industrial Courts are doing the same work and as such they are entitled for the same payscales and failure to give the same payscale has resulted in hostile discrimination. On the principle of equal pay for equal work the petitioners have claimed grant of payscales which are being given to the Clerks and the Office Superintendents in the Industrial Court. In support of their case, the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli and Another v. State of U.P. 1986(1) SCC 637 as also in the case of Bhagwan Dass and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 SC 2049.

(2.) On the other hand, Shri R. J. Oza, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 contended that the claims of the petitioners are not tenable because the different qualifications are being prescribed for the appointment on the post of Clerk in the office of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. So far as the post of Office Superintendent is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the post has to be filled in the Office of the Industrial Court by promotion from the cadre of Clerk and when the payscale of Clerks in the said Court is higher than the payscale of the clerks in the Labour Court, the payscale of Office Superintendent is rightly being prescribed higher than the post of Office Superintendent in the Labour Court. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that on the basis of the qualifications, qualifications and experience or experience it is permissible for the respondents to prescribe two different payscales. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Shyambabu Verma v. Union of India, reported in 1994(2) SCC 521. The general circular No.28 relating to the recruitment rules for the post of Court Clerk in the Industrial Court, provides that the appointment shall be made either (a) by nomination or (b) by promotion of persons (other than the typists) of proved merit and efficiency on the establishment of the Industrial Court. To be elligible for appointment by nomination, the candidate must, unless they are already in service of the Government be not more than 25 years of age on the date of appointment and must possess a degree in law of a recognized university. It has further been provided that the candidates who in adddition to the qualification of degree of law have experience of labour matters or possess a Diploma in Social Science with specialisation in Industrial and Labour Relations will be preferred. So, from the aforesaid general circular, it is clear that the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Court Clerk in the Industrial Court is Law Graduate. The learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute this position. The recruitment to the post of Superintendent, Clerk of the Court. Accountant and Bailiffs in the Office of the Labour Courts in the State are regulated under the Rules from time to time under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which has been published by notification dated 5th February, 1965. The appointment to the post of Superintendent, as per the aforesaid Rule is to be made by promotion from among the clerk of the Court on proved merit and efficiency on the establishment of the Labour Courts. The appointment to the post of clerks as per the aforesaid Rule is to be made either by promotion from among the members of the staff of the Labour Courts or by nomination. The proportion of appointment by promotion and nomination in this category is in the ratio of 50 : 50. The eligibility of the appointment by nomination under the rules is as follows:

(3.) For the post of Clerk in the Labour Court appointment by nomination, the candidate is required to possess a Degree in Arts, Science, Commerce or Law whereas for appointment to the post of Clerk in the Industrial Court, the minimum qualification is law graduate. The qualification of law graduate is higher than qualification of graduation in Arts, Science or Commerce. The higher qualification of law graduate is the requisite eligibility for appointment by nomination on the post of Clerks in the Office of the Industrial Court in comparison to the lower qualification of graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce which is required to be possessed by the candidate for appointment by nomination in the office of the Labour Court. The claim of the petitioner does not stand to reasonability. The learned Counsel, for the petitioner has not only urged that qualification of law Graduate is higher than the qualification of Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce but the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that for appointment on the post of Clerk in the offices of the Labour Court one of the qualifications prescribed is also LL.B. degree. A law graduate may be eligible for appointment on the post of Clerk by nomination in the office of the Labour Court but that is not the minimum qualification. The candidates with the qualifications of bachelor's Degree in Arts, Sciecne or Commerce are also eligible. The relevant rules nowhere even give any preferential right in the matter of appointment on the post of Clerk by nomination in the office of the Labour Court to the candidates possessing the qualification of graduation in law. Contrary to it, graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce is not eligible for appointment on the post of Clerk in the Industrial Court. For appointment on the post of Clerk in the Industrial Court the minimum qualification of graduation in law is essential. To get the degree of LL.B., a person has to undergo three years course after graduation in Arts, Science or Commerce. The fact that for appointment to the post of Clerk in the office of the Industrial Court LL.B. is considered to be the required minimum qualification makes the case of the petitioner distinguishable. In view of these facts and circumstances, the respondent- State Government has rightly fixed the higher payscale for Clerks in the Industrial Court which is justified in the context of the minimum prescribed qualification of LL.B. for appointment by nomination. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the post of Clerks in the Labour Court and that of the Industrial Court has rightly been made of different payscales and there can be no comparison in these two posts. The minimum requisite qualification for appointment on these two posts distinguish them from each other and on the parity of the nomenclature or on the principle of equal pay for equal work the claim of the petitioners for the payscale which has been prescribed for the Clerks in the Industrial Court is not justified. So far as the claim of the petitioner No.2 for the payacale of Office Superintendent working in the Industiral Court is concerned, it will not detain me much. The post of Office Superintendent has to be filled up by promotion. Promotion necessarily means the post of higher payscale and status. When the payscale of the post of Court Clerk in the office of the Industrial Court is Rs. 1400-2600 the payscale of the post of Office Superintendent in the said Court should be higher than that payscale. In view of those facts I fail to see any justification in the claim of the petitioner No.2 for the payscale of Rs.1640-2900 in the office of the Labour Court. When the payscale of the post of Court Clerk in the Labour Court is lower than the payscale of the Court Clerk in the Industrial Court, the payscale of the post of Office Superintendent in the Office of the Labour Court has rightly been prescribed lower than the payscale of the post of Office Superintendent in the Industrial Court. When the different qualifications have been laid down for the appointment on fedder post, the corresponding higher payscale for the promotional post stand to the test of reasonability. The decisions which have been cited by the Counsel for the petitioners are of little help to him because the different payscales of the posts are permissible on the basis of qualifications. The claim on the basis of equal pay for equal work cannot be accepted. This matter is clearly covered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Shyambabu (supra). I cannot do better than to make reference to the relelvant part of the judgment which is as follows: