R S JOSHI Vs. CHILDRENS AID SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Writ Petition, Petitioners are challenging inaction on the part of Respondent for not implementing the circular issued by the Joint Director of Training, Government of India, Minister of Labour, New Delhi dated 16th August, 1996 regarding respect of minimum payment of 2/3rd of the salary being paid to the faculty / staff members to the Petitioners. The alleged violation of "equal work for equal pay" doctrine is the main grievance of the Petitioners in the present Petition. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner No.1 was appointed by the Respondent No.2 on 9th March, 1992, Petitioner No.2 on 15th March, 1993 and the Petitioner No.3 on 4th October, 1995 as per appointment letters at Exhibit-A1, A2 and A3 to the Petition. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have gone through two years of training program as per Rules and Regulations of Respondent No.1 and 2. After two years of training program, examination was conducted by the Directorate of General of Education and Training, Government of India. Thereafter, as per the recommendation of Deputy Director of Vocational Training, the Petitioners were appointed by the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioners filed the above mentioned Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining that they were paid less than the prescribed scale of pay and monthly salary. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are paid Rs.2,400/- while the Petitioner No.3 is paid Rs.2,100/-.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed their affidavit in reply dated 29th June, 2002 and opposed the Petition on several grounds. It is the contention of the Respondent No.1 that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in as much as the Respondent No.1 is a Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and, therefore, it is not a State or other authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable against them. It is the further case of the Respondent No.1 that representation made by the Petitioners were forwarded to the Respondent No.3 for consideration on humanitarian grounds, however, Respondent No.3 has rejected the same under its letter dated 20th August, 1998. In view of these facts, it is not possible for them to implement the Central Government Circular dated 16th August, 1996.