RANGANATH MISRA, J.


These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution. Respondent the National Industrial Development Corporation Limited is a Government of India public sector enterprise and functions as consultants and engineers. The dispute in these cases relates to the employment of a clerk, some cooks and other employees in a canteen which was being run by the Corporation. The material placed on record shows that while the Corporation was proceeding to wind up the canteen, under interim orders of this Court the canteen has been continuing and the employment of the petitioners has not been terminated


2. Several affidavits have been filed from time to time by parties, several interim orders have also been made over the years when these petitions have been pending before this Court; written submissions have also been furnished


3. Counsel for the Corporation during the hearing of the matters took the stand that the Corporation was not interested in continuing the canteen as it is under no statutory obligation to maintain a canteen and the running of the canteen has been kept up only on account of the interim directions of this Court. At one state, this Court had made an interim order suggesting to the Director of Canteen of the Government of India to absorb the petitioners. That, however, has not been possible as the response indicates


4. At the hearing we suggested to counsel for the Corporation that considering the handful of employees working in the canteen who are petitioners before us and taking into account the fact that they have been serving for a good number of years and in the event of their employment being terminated they would be deprived of their source of livelihood and it would not be possible for them to get any other employment in view of their advanced age in life, the employment should not be terminated and the canteen should be continued providing employment to the petitioners, but as and when any suitable alternative is available for permanent absorption of the petitioners or some of them, they could be so absorbed. Mr. Francis, appearing for the Corporation has fairly accepted our suggestion


5. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been rendering the same service as employees of their respective classifications render elsewhere. In view of the decision of this Court that equal pay for equal work should be provided, we are sure that the Corporation would keep the relevant scales of pay in view while fixing the pay scale of these petitioners. We may not be taken to have required the Corporation to fix the same scale though the prevailing scale should be kept in view while providing reasonable scales of salary for these petitioners

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!