Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SURINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Decided
25 October 2007
Judges listed
A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 707 · 2007 INSC 1106

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard learned for the parties.

p. 707, margin G

These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 42/2000 and 43/2000 whereby the High Court has upheld the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had directed that the respondents herein who were working as Tractor Drivers on daily wage basis should be granted the same pay scale as those who had been regularly appointed, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, the other relief regarding regularization of their services was declined by the Trial Court and the same was affirmed by the High Court.

p. 708, margin A

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab is in appeal before us.

p. 708, margin C

Special leave was granted by this Court on 17.8.2001 and the execution of the order passed by the High Court was stayed. Today the appeals are before us for final hearing.

p. 708, margin C

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court.

p. 708, margin D

The principle of equal pay for equal work has gone a sea change. Earlier the view of this Court was that If two persons are discharging the same functions, they will be entitled to same wages. Subsequently this view has been changed and now the view of this Court is that there should be complete and total identity between the two persons similarly situated so as to grant equal pay for equal work. Recently this Court has held that identity between two persons has to be complete and total. In case of a regular appointee, he has undergone a selection process and his se~ices are regular. Even if a daily wage employee is discharging the same functions as a regular employee the authorities are not bound to grant equal pay to such a person who is appointed on daily wage basis, i.e., is appointed for a short term and has not faced the selection process. Thus, the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there is a total and complete identity between the two persons. In this view, we are supported by a decision of this Court in the case of S. C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2007] 9 SCR 130-JT [2007] 10 SC 272, which has referred to earlier decisions of this Court.

p. 708, margin D

In the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, concurring judgment has held that granting pay scale is an legislative function, and not a judicial function. There is separation powers under the Constitution between the three organs of the the judiciary should not encroach into the domain of the other organs. Montesquieus theory of separation of powers broadly applies

p. 709

In view of the legal position, as mentioned above, we opinion that the view taken by the High Court granting pay scale employees to the daily wage employees does not appear to be founded. Consequently, we allow these appeals and set aside of the High Court as also of the Trial Court and dismiss the the respondents herein.

p. 709, margin B

The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. RP. Appeals

p. 709, margin B