Latha Modon and others v State of Kerala and Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (WP(C) No. 13623 of 2021)

_**WP(C).13623**_ 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 13623 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 LATHA MODON AGED 43 YEARS KARUVAN HOUSE,AZHIKKODE.P.O, MYLADATHADAM,KANNUR-670009. 2 SHOBANAKUMARI.K, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,P.O.ALAVIL,ARAMKOTTAM, KANNUR-670009. 3 SAJITHA.M, MAMBAKARAN HOUSE,P.O.CHALAD, TKHEKKANMANAL,KANNUR-670014. 4 ANITHA.P, KALATHIL HOUSE,POCHOVA, KANNUR-670006. 5 RAJIKA.K.K, THIRUMANGALATH HOUSE,VADAKKAMBAD,P.O.MUNDALOOR,PERALASSERI,KANNUR670622. 6 RAGINI.A.P, SREENANDHANAM,KOTTAMMAL, P.O.KADALAYI,KANNUR-670007., PIN - -1 7 SHAJILA.V.K, W/O DINESHAN.K.K,VENGORA HOUSE, NARICKODE PARAPPURAM,MUZHAPPALA.P.O, KANNUR-670611. 8 REENAKUMARI, THAVAKKARA HARIJAN KOLANI, THAVAKKARA,KANNUR-670002. 9 HARSHA T.N., K.J.QUARTERS, THOTTADA, KANNUR-670 007. _**WP(C).13623**_ 2 10. MINI.K, K.J.QUARTERS,THOTTADA, KANNUR-670007. 11 BINDU.P.K, PRANAVAM,KANNADICHAL,P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR-670621. 12 ANITHA.M, PAYYANADAN HOUSE,KOTTALI.P.O, KANNUR-670005. BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH T.K.DEVARAJAN PAUL C THOMAS FRANKLIN ARACKAL BABU M. NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN HAARIS MOOSA NIKHITA ANN REBELLO ADESH JOSHI ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,TAXES (A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)CORPORATION LTD, BEVCO TOWER,VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695033,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE BEVERAGES, (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORTION LTD., BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. _**WP(C).13623**_ 3 4 THE COMPANY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES, (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORTION LTD., BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO. M. AND M. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.NAVEEN .T-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**WP(C).13623**_ 4 ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 13623 of 2021 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are appointed as permanent Labelling Workers at the Warehouse of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (KSBC for short). They were first engaged between 1983 to 2003 and continued to work uninterruptedly from the respective dates of their engagement. A labelling worker has to affix hologram security labels on the liquor bottles, as mandated under the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 (ME). While matters stood thus, the workers Union, representing the petitioners and other labelling workers at the Kannur, Ware House, raised an Industrial Dispute, by which a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode on the issue “whether the 23 labelling workers of Kerala State Beverages Corporation (Kannur Depot) are eligible for permanency in the present category”. The Industrial Tribunal took the matter on file as I.D.No.6 of 2005 and passed an award on 15.7.2010, holding that demand for permanency of the 23 labelling workers as workers of the KSBC to be legal and justified. Consequently, the KSBC was directed to regularise the workers to its service. _**WP(C).13623**_ 5 2. The KSBC challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal before this Court in W.P(C).No.14724 of 2011. After exhaustive consideration of the contentions, Exhibit P1 judgment was rendered, dismissing the writ petition and directing the KSBC to provide the workmen with identical reliefs as are provided to the labelling workers in the other Depots of the Corporation within a period of three months. Accordingly, the KSBC, after consultation with the Government and the Unions, regularised the service of the petitioners and other labelling workers _vide_ order No.1536/AE/2018/KSBC dated 24.4.2018. This was followed by Exhibit P2 Government Order dated 7.6.2018, regularising the service of another 437 labelling workers. Later, by Exhibit P3 dated 5.9.2019, the Government sanctioned pay scale for the 437 labelling workers regularised under Exhibit P2 order. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that, while almost all other labelling workers at different Ware Houses of the KSBC have been sanctioned pay scale, the petitioners are still being paid wages at piece rate, based on the number of liquor bottles labelled. 3. Advocate C.S.Ajit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, drew attention to Exhibit P1 judgment, wherein it is specificflaly directed that the workmen shall be provided with identical reliefs as are provided to the labelling workers in the other Depots of the Corporation. It is hence contended that the respondents are bound to _**WP(C).13623**_ 6 extend the monetary benefit of scale of pay to the petitioners, as has been granted to the other workers under Exhibit P3 and similar orders. It is contended that the duties and responsibilities of the petitioners and the labelling workers regularised under Exhibit P2 are identical and hence, there is no justification in denying the benefit of scale of pay to the petitioners alone. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in _**Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Others**_ [1982 1 SCC 618] and _**Union of India and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond**_ [2014 13 SCC 588] to contend that the petitioners are entitled for equal treatment based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 4. Advocate T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the KSBC submitted that the labelling workers of Kannur Ware House were regularised on the strength Exhibit R2(a) Memorandum of Settlement between the Corporation and the Union representatives. As per the terms of settlement, the wages of labelling workers is to be paid on piece rate basis. On the other hand, service of the 437 labelling workers in Exhibit P2 was regularised on the basis of a Cabinet decision, pursuant to which the Government fixed the time scale pay of Rs.16500-35700. As the petitioners are governed by the terms of settlement, they cannot seek for the time scale of pay granted to the _**WP(C).13623**_ 7 workers regularised on the basis of a Cabinet decision. So long as the settlement remains, the KSBC and the workers are bound by its terms. 5. Learned Senior Government Pleader V.Venugopal contended that the prayer for mandamus is not maintainable against the Government, since the petitioners have not even approached the Government. 6. In reply, Advocate Ajit Prakash submitted that Exhibit R2(a) Memorandum of Settlement has no relevance in view of Exhibit P1 judgment of this Court. It is pointed out that Exhibit P2 order itself has been passed based on the judgment and hence, it is preposterous for the Corporation to contend that the labelling workers at the Kannur Warehouse are still governed by the terms of settlement. It is submitted that in abundant caution the petitioners have submitted Exhibit P8 representation before the 1[st] respondent seeking issuance of necessary orders to the KSBC to grant scale of pay to the labelling workers at the Kannur Warehouse with effect from the date on which such benefit was granted to the other workers. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that, regularisation of labelling workers at the Kannur Warehouse was prompted by Exhibit P1 _**WP(C).13623**_ 8 judgment. Of course, the regularisation was effected on the strength of Exhibit R2(a) settlement. Even though the wages are to be paid on piece rate basis, even as per Clause 13 of Exhibit R2(a), the workers are made eligible for all benefits applicable to other regularised employees. More importantly, the Corporation does not refute the contention that the work rendered by the petitioners and the workers granted scale of pay, is identical. As such, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' enunciated in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India will definitely apply. In this context, the following exposition of the Apex Court in _**Randhir Singh**_ (supra) assumes relevance; _“_ _**8.** It is true that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims “equal pay for equal work for both men and women” as a directive principle of State Policy. “Equal pay for equal work for both men and women” means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone._ _**WP(C).13623**_ 9 _To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word “socialist” must mean something. Even if it does not mean ‘to each according to his need’, it must at least mean “equal pay for equal work”. “The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance_ _**WP(C).13623**_ 10 _with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance” (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled”. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle “equal pay for equal work” is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.”_ 8. In _**Rajesh Kumar Gond**_ (supra), the Apex Court refused to interfere with an order equating two posts, since no material was placed to prove the functional distinction between the posts. Herein also, other than the contention that the petitioners were appointed based on a Memorandum of Settlement, while the workers conferred with pay scale were appointed consequent to a Cabinet decision, the respondents have no case of there being any functional distinction in the work executed by the petitioners and the others. Being so, denial of equal pay to one set of employees amounts to discrimination and unreasonable classification. The facts not being in dispute and the _**WP(C).13623**_ 11 legal position being clear, it is declared that the petitioners are entitled for the scale of pay granted to the workers covered by Exhibits P2 and P3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 1[st] respondent shall take up Exhibit P8 and pass orders thereon, directing respondents 2 and 3 to extend the benefit of pay scale to the petitioners, as granted to the other labelling workers. While passing the order, the 1[st] respondent shall also consider the petitioners' claim for arrears of scale of pay with effect from the date on which the benefit was extended to the other workers. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequential orders, if any, shall be issued by respondents 2 and 3 within one month of receipt of the order passed by the 1[st] respondent. **Sd/-** ## **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** ## _vgs_ _**WP(C).13623**_ 12 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13623/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2015 IN W.P.(C)NO.14724/2011. - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(K)NO.41/2018/TD DATED 07.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TAXES DEPARTMENT - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(K)NO.50/2019/TD DATED 07.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TAXES DEPARTMENT - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.796/2013/TD DATED 09.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES(A)DEPARTMENT - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KSBC NO.14406/AE1/2019/KSBC DATED 02.11.2019 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.14406/AE1/2019/KSBC ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2019 - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS/LABELLING WORKERS THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENTA EXIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER BY REGISTRED POST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.1.2022