HC underscores equal pay for equal work

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that paying a lower wage for work identical to that of regular employees amounts to a “profound breach” of constitutional obligations. The court made it clear that the state could not create a “subordinate, disadvantaged class” of workers performing identical duties.

“It is incumbent upon the State to actively uphold the dignity of labour by curbing exploitative wage practices and thereby, provide the social and economic justice pledged by the Preamble. Any failure in this regard is not merely an administrative lapse but a profound breach of the State’s duty to defend and sustain the basic tenets of fairness, dignity and equality,” said Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.

The ruling came on a petition filed by an employee through counsel Gurnoor Singh Sethi. The court said the petitioner had worked full-time against a regular vacancy on duties “qualitatively and quantitatively” identical to regular Accounts Assistants. Yet, he continued to receive fixed wages. The court also took note of the fact that the respondent—Haryana Urban Development Authority—was unable to indicate any distinction in duties or qualifications.

Rejecting the state’s plea that the petitioner had accepted the terms of engagement, the court said the availability of vacancies, requisite qualifications and performance of identical work were established. Perpetuating differential pay structures would amount to forced submission induced by financial helplessness.

“Allowing a State employer to pay unequal wages for identical work would essentially amount to validating whimsical discrimination which would force vulnerable workers into involuntary submission, compelling them to choose between survival and self-respect. Such affront to human dignity is unacceptable being in direct violation of Articles 14 and 21,” the judge said.

The court added that the doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ was rooted in the constitutional philosophy and the status of employment—whether contractual, ad hoc or daily wage—was irrelevant once interchangeability of duties was established. “The two sets of employees cannot be paid different wages regardless of whether they are ad hoc, daily wage, temporary, contractual, or casual employees,” it said.