STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BALARAM SAHU
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
October 29,2002
STATE OF ORISSA
Appellant
VERSUS
BALARAM SAHU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VS. JAGANNATH MARUTI KONDHARE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JASMER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M R ALAGAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. RATHOD LADHU BECHAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DDA VAHAN CHALAK KARAMCHARI UNION VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHRITY [LAWS(DLH)-2005-1-61] [REFERRED TO]M N MISHRA VS. SIEMENS [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
GHANASHYAM NAYAK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2004-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
HEM RAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2004-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
NITA DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VS. GUJARAT GAS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
U P CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. PRATAP SINGH BISHT [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-229] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MAZDOOR SABHA VS. EXON LABORATORIES PVT LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN LAL UTTAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-171] [REFERRED TO]
HARADHAN MAHATO VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PANCHAYAT KHAMANON VS. PARDEEP KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-244] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-113] [REFERRED TO]
VED PARKASH AND ORS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-391] [REFERRED]
MOHAN SWAROOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAMJAN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-99] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-344] [REFERRED TO]
GITA RANI RASTOGI AND OTHERS VS. AUTHORIZED CONTROLLER MEERUT COLLEGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
TARANDEEP KAUR & ORS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-570] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-84] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VS. SUBHASH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-9-125] [REFERRED]
TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, REP BY ITS EXECUTI VS. CHAIRMAN-CUM-PREMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATI [LAWS(APH)-2004-6-73] [REFERRED]
CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCESOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY VS. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(APH)-2008-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE SUGAR CORP LTD VS. SANT RAJ SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LAL GUJAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-5-192] [REFERRED TO]
GODAWANI MARATHWADA PATBANDHARE VIKAS MAHAMANDAL VS. DEVIDAS GANPAT PAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 25 2 V A AND B OF CONTRACT LABOUR RANDA CENTRAL RULES 1971 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL SOUTH ZONE BANGALORE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-396] [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. NDMC GENERAL MAJDOOR UNION [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-464] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD GARG VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
JOSHI TUSHAR TANSUKHBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-547] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH NATH SAXENA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ZUBAIR VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRAMUKH SACHIV AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-315] [REFERRED TO]
NISHANT CHAWLA VS. TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL PRASAD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
KALA DEVI VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2009-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH NURSING ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-243] [REFERRED TO]
THE WORKMEN OF BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD VS. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-217] [REFERRED]
KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2006-3-613] [REFERRED]
GENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, ORISSA VS. GIRIDHARI SAHU [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL GITABEN RAMANLAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
GAJAJI GOPALJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
SATENDRA KUMAR RAI VS. CHAIRMAN U P POWER CORPORATION CHAIRMAN U P POWER SERVICE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
SATENDRA KUMAR RAI VS. CHAIRMAN U P POWER CORPORATION CHAIRMAN U P POWER SERVICE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-269] [REFERRED]
SRIKANTA MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
RANVEER SINGH MAHLE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-199] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKHAR SHUKLA GOVIND SWAROOP SHUKLA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-291] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. PRABHU NARAIN SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-183] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
NARMAD SHANKER AWASTHI AND VS. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF DAVANGERE COTTON MILLS VS. C R KRISHNA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-340] [REFERRED TO]
TALESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ORS. VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-123] [REFERRED TO]
SANIA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. VS. PUSHKAR BHATT AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR SHAKYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-302] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. INDIAN AIRLINES CHAIRMAN [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-445] [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. NDMC GENERAL MAJDOOR UNION [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-197] [REFERRED TO]
JEET RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-405] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-4-168] [REFERRED TO]
NIRPINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2003-11-89] [REFERRED]
RAJESH KUMAR NISHAD VS. NAGAR NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
SARVAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL SINGH VS. N D M C [LAWS(DLH)-2005-2-160] [REFERRED TO]
CREDAI-BANM, RAIGAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-181] [REFERRED TO]
BHADO PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2006-11-160] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-390] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL CHAND VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-261] [REFERRED]
JODH SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. CHANDRA DEO [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIABAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TAPAS CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(CAL)-2005-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-381] [REFERRED TO]
SREE ANNAPOORNA AGRO FOODS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
HOME GUARD SAINIK EVAM PARIVAR KALYAN SANGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
MOIRANGTHEM MEDHABATI DEVI AND ANR. VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2007-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHEED ALAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-190] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM VS. SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD [LAWS(HPH)-2004-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHARANJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
U P VYAPAR KAR (COMMERCIAL TAX) VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-502] [REFERRED TO]
PRADESHIK SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA ADHAYPAK KALYAN SAMITI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PARDESH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBIR SINGH VS. D D A [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
B NARSING RAO VS. A P KHADI and VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD HYD [LAWS(APH)-2005-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
RITA BHATTACHARJEE VS. JYOTIRMOY MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2009-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. TILAK RAJ [LAWS(SC)-2003-7-81] [REFERRED]
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT IV AND SRI SHAMIM MIRZA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA SETU NIGAM KARMCHARI PARISHAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
M.B. PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
GUJ STATE TEXTILE CORP. & OFFICERS & TECHN. UNION VS. GUJARAT STATE TEXTILE CORP LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-242] [REFERRED TO]
PROJECT OFFICERSOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT VS. ABHIKARAN KISARYI ZOD [LAWS(BOM)-2006-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7342 OF 1993 :
The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers, have filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa for payment of remuneration on the same scale and basis paid to the regularly employed staff, claiming that they are discharging the same duties and functions, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. They also sought for regularization of their services on the ground that they have been found working for considerably long period of time to justify their regularization. The appellant-State contested the claim by contending that the duties and responsibilities of the employees in the regular establishment were more onerous than that of the duties of N.M.R. workers, who are employed in various projects on daily basis and that their engagement also depended on the availability of the work in the different projects and consequently, they cannot claim any parity for equal pay. The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 10-3-1992 upheld the claim for regularisation by observing that the said aspect of the matter was not seriously challenged. As for the claim for equal pay, the High Court was of the view that there was no reason to deny them the equal scales of pay and sustained their claim on par with those employed on regular basis with effect from 2-1-1990, namely, the date of filing of the Writ Petition, with a further direction that those who have served continuously for a period of five years by then should be regularized. Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed.
(2.)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7343 OF 1993 :
The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers in the Rengali Power Project, also claim for similar relief as in the other appeal, noticed supra. Overruling the objections of the appellants, while directing regularization of the workers, who have completed five years of continuous service as on the date of the order, the High Court also applying the principles laid down in the earlier cases, upheld in this case as well the right to get equal pay though in the matter of actual payment taking into account the negligible difference, a lump sum amount was directed to be made available to take care of the claim of all the respondents. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 1995 :
(3.)The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers employed in the various projects of the Irrigation Department of the State Government, sought for relief of regularization of their services and equal pay as that of the regularly employed staff. As in the other cases, the claims were sustained necessitating this appeal also by the State.
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2002 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 16204-16205 of 1996) :
The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers, have filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa for payment of remuneration on the same scale and basis paid to the regularly employed staff, claiming that they are discharging the same duties and functions, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. They also sought for regularization of their services on the ground that they have been found working for considerably long period of time to justify their regularization. The appellant-State contested the claim by contending that the duties and responsibilities of the employees in the regular establishment were more onerous than that of the duties of N.M.R. workers, who are employed in various projects on daily basis and that their engagement also depended on the availability of the work in the different projects and consequently, they cannot claim any parity for equal pay. The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 10-3-1992 upheld the claim for regularisation by observing that the said aspect of the matter was not seriously challenged. As for the claim for equal pay, the High Court was of the view that there was no reason to deny them the equal scales of pay and sustained their claim on par with those employed on regular basis with effect from 2-1-1990, namely, the date of filing of the Writ Petition, with a further direction that those who have served continuously for a period of five years by then should be regularized. Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed.
(2.)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7343 OF 1993 :
The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers in the Rengali Power Project, also claim for similar relief as in the other appeal, noticed supra. Overruling the objections of the appellants, while directing regularization of the workers, who have completed five years of continuous service as on the date of the order, the High Court also applying the principles laid down in the earlier cases, upheld in this case as well the right to get equal pay though in the matter of actual payment taking into account the negligible difference, a lump sum amount was directed to be made available to take care of the claim of all the respondents. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 1995 :
(3.)The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers employed in the various projects of the Irrigation Department of the State Government, sought for relief of regularization of their services and equal pay as that of the regularly employed staff. As in the other cases, the claims were sustained necessitating this appeal also by the State.
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2002 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 16204-16205 of 1996) :
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.