Team  SoOLEGAL

Bombay High Court has ruled that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal rather than a fundamental right

Team SoOLEGAL 17 Aug 2021 4:13pm

Bombay High Court has ruled that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal rather than a fundamental right

On the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work," the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a slew of petitions by Minimum Competency Vocational Course (MCVC) instructors claiming pay scales on par with full-time teachers under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court's bench of Justices SB Shukre and RB Deo pointed out that the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is not abstract and therefore does not work in a vacuum.

"Equal Pay for Equal Work" is a constitutional goal, not a fundamental right, according to the Court.

They indicated that pay parity will be determined by a number of elements, including educational qualifications, the nature of the work, the functions to be performed, the obligations to be fulfilled, including experience.

The Court stated, "Designation of posts cannot be the only true ground for comparison." The petitioners, who are MCVC instructors teaching categories XI and XII at schools in a few districts of geographic area, asserted that their work was of a similar nature because the regular lecturers who also instructed those courses had a similar or similar level of education.

The Maharashtra government argued that because the educational qualifications, expertise required, nature of work, and achievement criteria differ, regular lecturers cannot be treated on equal footing with regular lecturers.

The Court was also made aware of a report by a Commissioner appointed by the Commercial Court Akola, which stated that the evidence on record revealed that the work, obligations, and responsibilities assigned to the regular teacher and regular teacher were completely different.

The Bench abstained from making any comments on the evaluation of posts because it was a complicated exercise involving multiple considerations, unless the executive's judgment was erroneous.

The Bench refused to intervene with the "legitimate use of executive power" and dismissed the petitions as a result.



Tagged: Bombay High Court   fundamental right   constitutional goal   Equal Pay for Equal Work   Nagpur Bench   Minimum Competency Vocational Course   Article 14   Indian Constitution   Supreme Court   Justice SB Shukre   Justice RB Deo   Maharashtra   Commercial Court Akola  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Featured Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com