Ram Bhawan Singh vs. National Building Construction
Background
The petitioner-workman was employed as a Crane Operator in 1986 and was later "regularised" by an appointment letter in 1992 that designated his post as "Senior Crane Operator." Despite this designation, he continued to be paid a lower pay scale than even an ordinary Crane Operator. The Labour Court had rejected his claim for the higher Senior Crane Operator pay scale, finding no evidence he was ever actually promoted to that post.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court agreed that the "Senior Crane Operator" designation in his appointment letter was likely an inadvertent clerical error, since Senior Crane Operator is a promotional post reached only through an actual promotion process (which never happened in his case), so he could not claim that higher pay scale. However, the Court found it undisputed that he had, at all times, actually functioned as a Crane Operator, yet was being paid even less than the pay scale fixed for that very post by the employer's own 1993 circular. The Court held that an employer cannot pay different, lower wages to employees holding the identical post and performing the same duties merely because they entered service through regularisation rather than direct recruitment. The petition was partly allowed, entitling him to the correct Crane Operator pay scale (though not the higher Senior Crane Operator scale he had originally claimed).
Lesson Learnt
Once an employee belongs to a certain job cadre or post, the employer cannot discriminate in pay scale based merely on how the employee joined (direct recruitment versus later regularisation): the principle of equal pay for equal work within the same cadre must be honoured.