Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, the D.G.O.F/Chairman of the Ordnance Factory Board, and the General Manager of Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Nagpur, challenged the judgment and order dated 05.08.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench at Nagpur, in Original Application No. 2065 of 2014. The CAT had directed the petitioners to consider regularisation of the respondent employees, who were members of the Ordnance Employees Union and had completed 240 days of work in a year. The respondents had sought regularisation and equal pay for equal work. The petitioners argued that the CAT's order was erroneous and unsustainable. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no perversity or illegality in the CAT's order. The Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution applies to temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees. The petition was dismissed, and the CAT's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Temporary Employees - Completion of 240 Days - The Tribunal directed the employer to consider regularisation of employees who had completed 240 days of work in a year, relying on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or illegality. (Paras 1-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to temporary employees who perform the same duties as regular employees, and the employer cannot deny regularisation arbitrarily. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to consider regularisation of the respondent employees who had completed 240 days of work in a year, and whether the impugned order was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT order dated 05.08.2016.
Law Points
- Regularisation of temporary employees
- Equal pay for equal work
- Completion of 240 days
- Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 124
Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2017
Ravindra V. Ghuge, S.M. Modak
Ms. Mugdha R. Chandurkar for the Petitioners, Shri B. Lahiri for the Respondents
Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence; The D.G.O.F/Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory Ambajhari
Ordnance Employees Union, through its General Secretary, Shri S.S. Kokate; G.B. Khade; M.G. Gaurikar; D.V. Bire
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing regularisation of temporary employees.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash and set aside the CAT order dated 05.08.2016.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the CAT order directing them to consider regularisation of the respondent employees who had completed 240 days of work.
Previous Decisions
The CAT, by its order dated 05.08.2016, directed the petitioners to consider regularisation of the respondents.
Issues
Whether the CAT order directing regularisation of temporary employees who completed 240 days of work is sustainable in law.
Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to temporary employees.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the CAT order was erroneous, unsustainable, and contrary to law.
The respondents supported the CAT order, contending that they had completed 240 days of work and were entitled to regularisation and equal pay.
Ratio Decidendi
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution applies to temporary employees who perform the same duties as regular employees, and the employer cannot deny regularisation arbitrarily when employees have completed 240 days of work.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2016 delivered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Original Application No. 2065 of 2014.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Original Application No. 2065 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Nagpur, which was allowed on 05.08.2016. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the CAT order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16
