In the year 1981, the Phosphates Company Limited was incorporated as a joint venture between the Government of India and Rupublic of Nauru with the objective of manufacturing of Di-Ammonium Phosphates. Later on, in the y

In Matter of State Of Punjab And Ors vs. Jagjit Singh And Ors, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which meant equal pay for everyone irrespective of sex, was deducible from the Preamble and Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', was held to be applicable to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification, though both sets of employees (engaged on temporary and regular basis, respectively) performed identical duties and responsibilities. The present case is similar to the case of DTC Security Staff Union (Regd). vs. DTC & Anr. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that there is no material to hold that pay scale 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 pay scale 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 Havildar and Security Guard also. The Tribunal ought to have refrained from going to the exercise of fixation of pay scales no sooner than 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 pay scale to Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard merely for the reason that parity of pay scale existed for the posts of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer with that of the Delhi Police. It is not in dispute that the pay scale 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 Pay Commission and now the 7th Pay Commission. There is no material on record that the appellant at any time filed any objection or raised issues for grant of appropriate pay scale 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 pay scale vis-a-vis recommendations of the Pay Commission and would generate further heartburn and related problems vis-à vis other employees of the Corporation. 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. Preamble of The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, states that it is an Act to provide for the payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers and for the prevention of discrimination, on the ground of sex, against women in the matter of employment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In view of the above, An employer cannot differentiate the pay scales for same work or work of a similar nature on the ground of sex or nomenclature of employment but can do so when there is vast difference in the nature of general duties performed and particularly in light of above judgement, the pay scales of persons employed in public sector undertaking is governed by Pay Commission, can't be objected at later stage by security guards.