(1.) CHALLENGE in these appeals is the order dated May 26, 2003 of learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions filed by the ks were dismissed and it was held that the appellants were not entitled to claim party with hat of the employees of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Khetri Copper Complex (Respondents No.1 and 2).
(2.) IT is averred in the writ petitions by the appellants that the Hindustan Copper Limited (respondent No.1) is a company registered under the Companies Act and solely owned by the Government of India and Khetri Copper Complex (respondent No.2) is unit of respondent No.1. The respondents No.1 and 2 are `State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Copper Kalyan Trust (Respondent No.3) was created by the respondent No.1 for the benefit generally of the employees of respondent No.1 including other persons residing at Khetri Nagar in connection with their business and matters ancillary thereto and make available to them at cheap and reasonable prices the necessary items of daily use and articles required for better living of at Khetri Nagar. The trustees of respondent No.3 are nominated by the respondent No.1 and they are senior officers of the respondents No.1 and 2. The trust is wholly managed by Senior Officers of the respondents No.1 and 2 who are trustees of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 is also instrumentality agency of the State. The appellants are Salesman, Accountant, Mechanic and Delivery boy working with the respondent No.3 from 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. The posts of Accountant, Salesman, Mechanic and Delivery Boy of respondent No.3 are equivalent to the posts of Accountant. Salesman, Mechanic and Delivery Boy of respondent No.2. The pay scales of Accountant, Salesman, Mechanic and Delivery Boy of respondent no.2 are 1420-70-2470; 1240-37-1795; and 1160-27-1565 and the respondent No.3 has fixed the appellants for the posts of Accountant. Salesman, Mechanic and Delivery Boy on the fixed pay of Rs. 805 - 690 - 690 and 510/- as consolidated pay. The appellants submit that the duties of the posts of Accounts, Sales, Mechanic and Delivery Boy of the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 are identical and their status and functions are same, still the pay provided to the appellants is much less than the employees of the respondent No.2 who are performing identical duties. The appellants submit that the State Instrumentalities and State Enterprises are bound to follow the principles of `equal pay for equal work' and denial of equal pay to the appellants by the respondent No.3 is arbitrary discriminatory and irrational and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In not granting the pay scale equal to the employees of the respondent No.3 to the appellants is illegal, discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution.
(3.) REFUTING the contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and solely owned by the Government of India and the respondent No.2 is a unit of respondent No.1 and hence being a Government company enterprise the respondents No.1 and 2 are the instrumentality or agency of the State and hence, covered under the definition of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.3 was created by respondent No.1 for the benefit generally of the employees of respondent No.1 including other persons residing at Khetri Nagar in connection with their business and mater ancillary thereto and make available to them at cheap and reasonable price the necessary items of daily use and articles required for better living at Khetri. The trustees of respondent No.3 are nominated by respondent No.1 and the nominated trustees are the Senior Officers of the respondent No.1 and 2. The trust is wholly managed by Senior Officers of respondent No.1 and 2. The entire control, regulations, management application and administration of the trust property whether capital or income, rent, interest or profit of any kind is in the discretion of trustees. Therefore in view of the purpose of trust, control and management of trust it is clear that the control of respondents No.1 and 2 indeed so deep and pervasive that all the trustees are nominated by them. They are incharge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the trust and of its income and property are also wholly controlled by the nominees of respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore the respondent No.2 is also an instrumentality agency of the State. The appellants are working on the posts of Accountants from August 21, 1975. The posts of Accountant, Junior Accountant, Salesmen and Helper of respondent No.3 is equivalent to the posts of accountant. Junior Accountant, Salesman and Helper of respondent No.2. The pay scales of Accountant, Salesman and Helper of respondent No.2 are 1420-70-2470; 1240-37-1795; and 1160-27-1565 whereas the respondent No.3 has fixed the appellants for the posts of accountant. Junior Accountant, Salesman and Helper on the fixed pay of Rs. 805-690/-, 690/-, and 510/- as consolidated pay. The duties of the post of Accountant, Junior Accountant, Salesman and Helper of respondent No.3 are identical and their status and functions are same still the pay as provided to appellants is much less than the employees of respondent No.2 who are performing the identical duties. All the State Instrumentalities and State Enterprises are bound to follow the principal of equal pay for the equal work. Denial of equal pay is arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational nd violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Karri Pothuraju (2003) 7 SCC 384, Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela (2006) 2 SCC 482, Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 879) and Grih Kalyan Kendra Worker's Union vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1173).