NATIONAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER CORP LTD Vs. JASWANT SINGH
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
National Hydro -Electric Power Corp Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Bench of this court in SWP No.357/1991 on
20.5.1990. The writ petitioners who are working as Surveyors is Salal Project sought parity of their pay with their counter parts working in
Dhouliganga Hydre Electric Project (U.P) and Chamera Hydre Electric
Project (H.P). The stand of the appellants before the writ court was
1 - That the projects were located in different parts of the country and geographically the employees of the appellant corporation working in different projects had to live in different conditions. 2 - Even the conditions of service of the employees belonging to different projects were different. 3 - That qualifications for appointment were also different. 4 - That the writ petitioners were governed by a settlement which they entered into with the employer -appellant and their scales of pay were fixed in terms of that settlement. That being so, they were estopped from claiming parity with other persons.
(2.) THE learned Single Bench while passing the judgment impugned has registered two of these objections taken by the appellants. Those are
relating to places of work being different and the privity of settlement
between the employer and the writ petitioners. The learned Single Bench
after registering these two objections has referred to judgments laid
down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 334, AIR 1985 SC 1124, AIR 1984
SC 1211 and AIR 1994 SC 265. Then the learned Single Bench concludes his
judgment by the following sentence: -
In view of the above.................................... The petition is accordingly allowed.
(3.) THE appellant -corporation was not contesting the proposition of law known as equal pay for equal work . There could be no denial to the
law laid down by the Apex Court of this country in the judgments referred
to. The grounds taken in the objections would per necessity require the
writ court to return a finding quo such objections. The learned writ
court unfortunately omitted to do so. Dumping the objections on the limb
of oblivion, and deciding the writ petition on the analogy of some
judgments, without taking into account the basic distinction of the case
in hand (made clear in the objections) is equivalent to ignoring the
basic precautions which law requires a court to take.
The essential features of a judgment under law are statement of facts, adjudication, reasoning and finality. We find the judgment to be
lacking both in adjudication and reasoning. The learned Single Bench has
not even touched the grounds taken in the objections, therefore, has
omitted to adjudicate upon points in issue. He has also provided no
reasoning for the judgment.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.