NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).5005  OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8039 of 2016)

DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION (REGD.) ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DTC AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Appellant sought a Reference on 24.10.1979, under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’) with regard to revision of pay­scale of Security Staff

up to the rank of Assistant Security Inspector,  in the Delhi

Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Corporation’). The Industrial Tribunal, by Award dated

22.08.1985 held that Assistant Security Officer, Security

Havaldar and Security Guard in the services of the

Corporation were  entitled to the  pay­scale  of  Rs.425­700/­,

1

Rs.260­350/­ and Rs.225­308/­respectively, with effect  from

01.10.1979, at par with their counterparts in the Delhi Police

Force. The Corporation challenged the Award unsuccessfully

before the Single  Judge.  The Division Bench set  aside  the

Award, and which is presently assailed.

3. Ms.  Anitha  Shenoy, learned  counsel for the  appellant,

submitted that the Tribunal granted parity in pay­scale with

the Delhi police based on consideration of material evidence

inter alia with regard to similarity in nature of duties, existing

parity for the  post of  Deputy  Security  Officer  and  Security

Officer with that in the  Delhi Police, the next below post

principle in the Corporation itself, and the pay­scale available

to similarly situated security staff in the Food Corporation of

India, the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, etc.  In absence of any

infirmity in the decision­making process by the Tribunal, the

Division Bench erred in exercising appellate jurisdiction over

the Award.   The principles and the nature of the jurisdiction

exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with

2

regard to matters concerning pay­scale, including equal pay

for equal work, are fundamentally different from the

adjudication of the same by an Industrial Tribunal under the

Act.   The primary purpose of industrial adjudication is to

ensure social justice, secure peace and harmony between the

employer and workmen and to ensure full cooperation between

them.   The Tribunal for the  purpose  can confer  rights and

privileges which it considers reasonable and proper and

essential for keeping industrial peace.

4. It is pointed out that parity in pay­scale of the security

cadre in the Corporation with that in the Delhi Police existed

till 1962.  Thereafter, though parity existed  with the  Delhi

Police for the  rank of  Deputy  Security  Officer  and Security

Officer in the Corporation, the same was denied for the post of

Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security

Guard in the Corporation.   The discrimination, for no

justifiable reason was completely arbitrary and contrary to the

constitutional ethos for a living wage and parity in pay­scales

3

based on wholesome identity, applying the principle of equal

pay for equal work, it is argued.  There was a great amount of

similarity in the nature of duties of the three posts with that of

the equivalent ranks in the Delhi Police.  Paucity of funds can

never be justification to deny parity in pay­scale, it is further

contended.

5. Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the Corporation,

submitted that the pay­scales for posts in the Security Cadre

were based on the 3rd  Pay Commission recommendations

dated 01.01.1973. The pay­scales have been revised

periodically in  accordance with  recommendations  of  4th  Pay

Commission dated 01.01.1986, 5th  Pay Commission dated

01.01.1996, 6th  Pay Commission dated 01.01.2006 and

ultimately the 7th  Pay Commission recommendations have

been  made  applicable to the  employees  of the  Corporation,

including the posts in  the security  cadre.  The Corporation

was funded by the Government of the National Capital

Territory of Delhi,  which did not approve  implementation of

the award inter alia because of the financial implications.

4

6. We have considered the submissions.   The Security

Cadre  of the  Corporation comprises  of the  Deputy  Security

Officer,  Security  Officer,  Assistant  Security  Officer,  Security

Havaldar and  Security  Guard.   Parity of pay­scales in the

security cadre of the Corporation, with that of the Delhi Police,

did exist till 1962.   Pursuant to the 1st  and 2nd  Pay

Commission recommendations, parity in pay­scales of Deputy

Security Officer and Security Officer was maintained with that

in the Delhi Police, but not for the rank of Assistant Security

Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard.     Aggrieved,

the  Appellant­Union sought  Reference  under the  Act.   The

Corporation contended in its written statement that pay­scales

of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security

Guard were fixed in accordance with the 3rd Pay Commission

recommendation dated 01.01.1973. A pay commission had

been constituted to prepare a wage structure for all employees

of the Corporation, and which was to submit its report shortly.

The Tribunal opined that it was an arduous and time

consuming task.  On that  basis, the Tribunal  proceeded to

5

assume  jurisdiction with  regard  to  grant  of the  appropriate

pay­scale.  It hardly needs emphasis that grant of pay scale is

a highly technical and complex matter, which requires

consideration of a host of factors, such as the qualifications

for the posts, the method of recruitment, the nature of duties,

etc.  Therefore, the Courts/ Tribunal are loathe to interfere in

matters with regard to grant of pay­scale. In Union of India v.

P.V. Hariharan,  (1997) 3 SCC 568, it was observed as

follows:­

“5…We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations  of  a  Pay  Commission.  Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on  the  basis  of  such change.  The Tribunal  should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture  before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue.  Very  often, the  doctrine  of “equal pay for equal work” is also being misunderstood and  misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter….”

6

7. There is  no  material to  hold that  pay­scale  of  Deputy

Security Officer and Security Officer in the Corporation was

consciously kept at par with that of the Delhi Police keeping in

mind aspects with regard to the qualifications, nature of

duties, etc.  Merely because the pay­scale may have been and

remained the same, it cannot lead to the conclusion of a

conscious parity on the principle of equal pay for equal work

so  as to  make it  discriminatory  and  a  ground  for  grant  of

parity to Assistant Security  Officer, Security  Havaldar and

Security Guard also.  The Tribunal ought  to have refrained

from going into the exercise of fixation of pay­scales no sooner

that it was brought to its attention that a Commission

constituted for the purpose was examining the same.  Though

the Tribunal examined the pay scales given to similarly

situated security  personnel in other  organisations,  and also

the next below post principle in the Corporation itself, ignoring

the difference in the methods of recruitment and qualifications

for appointment in the two organisations, it primarily based its

conclusion to grant parity of  pay­scale to Assistant Security

Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard merely for the

7

reason that parity of pay­scale existed for the posts of Deputy

Security  Officer  and Security  Officer  with that  of the  Delhi

Police.  

8. It is not in dispute that the pay­scale of the employees of

the Corporation, including the security cadre, have been

revised from time to time in accordance with the

recommendations of 4th, 5th, 6th Pay­Commission and now the

7th Pay­Commission.   There is no material on record that the

appellant at any time filed any objection or raised issues for

grant of appropriate pay­scale either before the 4th  Pay­

Commission or the successive Commissions.   If the award of

the Tribunal is to be implemented today, it will create a highly

anomalous position in the Corporation, and shall lead to

serious complications with regard to the issues of pay­scale

vis­à­vis recommendations of the Pay­Commission and would

generate further heartburn and related problems vis­à­vis

other employees of the Corporation.

8

9. The Government of Delhi, which would have had to bear

the  financial  burden,  did not  concur with  the Board of the

Corporation to abide by the Award.  The vast difference in the

nature of general duties performed by personnel of the police

force in contradistinction to that of security personnel

discharging limited security duties in the confines of the

Corporation hardly needs any emphasis.  We find no reason to

interfere with the order of the Division Bench.  

10.   The appeal is dismissed.

………………………………….J.  (Ranjan Gogoi)  

………………………………….J.  (R. Banumathi)

.……….………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)

New Delhi, May 11, 2018.

9