1997 JTR(SC) 332
1998 AIR(SC) 295 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 4271 ; 2015 AllSCR 335 ; 1997 1 CLR 1133 ; 1997 91 FJR 329 ; 1997 3 JT 455 ; 1998 LIC 405 ; 2001 3 LLJ 1454 ; 1997 3 LLN 304 ; 1997 2 Scale 558 ; 1997 3 SCC 571 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 841 ; 1997 2 SCR 368 ; 1997 3 SCT 155 ; 1997 2 SLR 448 ; 1997 KHC 3589 ; 1997 1 KLT(Online) 1029 ; 1997 3 Supreme 433
1997(3) Supreme 433
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20393 of 1996)
Decided on 21-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : L.N. Rao, V.S. Reddy and S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B. Parthasarthy, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of orders issued by the Government and is entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with Government employees.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16, Art.226, Art.39(d), Art.14
(A) The judgment interprets the interplay between Articles 14, 16, 39(d), and 226 of the Constitution in the context of private educational institutions receiving no grant-in-aid. It holds that when a private institution imparts education, which is a fundamental right, and the state has created an interest by issuing executive instructions to place employees on par with government pay scales, the institutions employees are entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 to enforce those directions even in the absence of specific statutory rules. The availability of a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act does not bar the exercise of the High Courts extraordinary jurisdiction where public interest is involved.
(B) Key legal principles include: equality and non-discrimination in remuneration under Article 14 and 39(d); protection of interests created by the state in private educational institutions; enforceability of executive instructions through writ jurisdiction; and the concurrent remedy under industrial legislation not being an exclusive bar to Article 226 petitions.
Facts of the case:
Lab Assistants appointed on daily wages in a private college sought equal pay for equal work with government employees. Writ petition dismissed initially, but executive instructions mandated parity. Some co-petitioners withdrew, and the management subsequently paid equal wages. The appellants pursued enforcement through the courts.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts judgment was set aside. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the writ petition maintainable. The state has an obligation to provide educational opportunities, and private institutions catering to public interest must comply with government directions on pay parity. The High Courts remedy under Article 226 is available despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
Issues:
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 lies to enforce executive instructions for equal pay in a private, non-grant-in-aid educational institution when no statutory rules exist, and whether the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is exclusive.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where education is a fundamental right and the state creates an interest in private institutions through executive directives, employees are entitled to enforce parity under Article 39(d) via Article 226, as the jurisdiction is wide and necessary to uphold public interest, irrespective of concurrent industrial dispute mechanisms.
Result:
Appeal allowed; writ issued directing equal pay on par with government employees; costs not awarded.
(A) The judgment interprets the interplay between Articles 14, 16, 39(d), and 226 of the Constitution in the context of private educational institutions receiving no grant-in-aid. It holds that when a private institution imparts education, which is a fundamental right, and the state has created an interest by issuing executive instructions to place employees on par with government pay scales, the institutions employees are entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 to enforce those directions even in the absence of specific statutory rules. The availability of a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act does not bar the exercise of the High Courts extraordinary jurisdiction where public interest is involved.
(B) Key legal principles include: equality and non-discrimination in remuneration under Article 14 and 39(d); protection of interests created by the state in private educational institutions; enforceability of executive instructions through writ jurisdiction; and the concurrent remedy under industrial legislation not being an exclusive bar to Article 226 petitions.
Facts of the case:
Lab Assistants appointed on daily wages in a private college sought equal pay for equal work with government employees. Writ petition dismissed initially, but executive instructions mandated parity. Some co-petitioners withdrew, and the management subsequently paid equal wages. The appellants pursued enforcement through the courts.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts judgment was set aside. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the writ petition maintainable. The state has an obligation to provide educational opportunities, and private institutions catering to public interest must comply with government directions on pay parity. The High Courts remedy under Article 226 is available despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
Issues:
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 lies to enforce executive instructions for equal pay in a private, non-grant-in-aid educational institution when no statutory rules exist, and whether the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is exclusive.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where education is a fundamental right and the state creates an interest in private institutions through executive directives, employees are entitled to enforce parity under Article 39(d) via Article 226, as the jurisdiction is wide and necessary to uphold public interest, irrespective of concurrent industrial dispute mechanisms.
Result:
Appeal allowed; writ issued directing equal pay on par with government employees; costs not awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, made on April 23, 1996 in W.A. No. 179 of 1996.
3. The admitted position is that the appellant and six others had been appointed on daily wages to the post of Lab. Assistants as non-teaching staff of the respondent-private college. They were being paid daily wages. Writ petition and appeal seeking equal pay having been dismissed, they have filed the present appeal for direction to pay them equal pay for equal work on par with the other Government employees.
4. It is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Government have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on par with the Government employees. The question is: when there is no statutory rules issued in that behalf, and the Institution, at the relevant time, being not in receipt of any grant-in-aid; whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable? In view of the long line of decisions of this Court holding that when there is an interest created by the Government in an Institution to impart education, which is a fundamental right of the citizens. The teachers who teach the education gets an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a consequence, the element of public interest requires to regulate the conditions of service of those employees on par with Government employees. In consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as per the executive instructions of the Government ? It is not also in dispute that all the persons who filed the writ petition along with the appellant had later withdrawn from the writ petition and thereafter the respondent-Management paid the salaries on par with the Government employees. Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law. We are of the view that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to avail of the right to education. The private institutions cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. The teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as to which forum one should approach. The High Court has held that the remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. When an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226; the jurisdiction part is very wide. It would be different position, if the remedy is a private law remedy. So, they cannot be denied the same benefit which is available to others. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is maintainable. They are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with Government employees under Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ is issued. But is the circumstances without costs.
Appeal allowed.
********