Association of Employees of National Productivity Council Vs. Chairman, National Productivity Council and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. leave granted.2. by consent the matter has been taken up for final hearing.3. in the case of state of haryana and ors. v. charanjit singh and ors. reported in : (2006)illj431sc to which one of us (hon'ble kapadia, j.)was a party, it has been held by this court that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' will not apply automatically in every case. in cases where parity of wages is claimed by the workmen, the management can be directed to constitute what is called as an equi valance committee which will decide the question of parity after examining the nature of work, the nature of responsibility and the hierarchy. this exercise has not been undertaken in this case. consequently, we are directing the management to appoint an expert committee. before that committee, the workmen will appear. they will place all the relevant material before that committee including the resolution of the board of directors of the company dated 1st november, 1992.4. in the meantime, an interim settlement has been entered into between the management and the workmen. that settlement is taken on record. the settlement will operate till the equi- valance committee decides the question of pay.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. By consent the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

3. In the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors. reported in : (2006)ILLJ431SC to which one of us (Hon'ble Kapadia, J.)was a party, it has been held by this Court that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' will not apply automatically in every case. In cases where parity of wages is claimed by the workmen, the Management can be directed to constitute what is called as an Equi Valance Committee which will decide the question of parity after examining the nature of work, the nature of responsibility and the hierarchy. This exercise has not been undertaken in this case. Consequently, we are directing the Management to appoint an Expert Committee. Before that Committee, the workmen will appear. They will place all the relevant material before that Committee including the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company dated 1st November, 1992.

4. In the meantime, an interim settlement has been entered into between the Management and the workmen. That settlement is taken on record. The settlement will operate till the Equi- Valance Committee decides the question of pay parity.

5. Accordingly, this civil appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.