The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the principle of equal pay for equal work by holding that contract workers performing the same or similar duties as regular employees are entitled to parity in wages and service conditions. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to adjudicate such disputes and fix wage rates, observing that wage parity cannot be denied merely because workers are engaged through a contractor when the nature of work remains identical.
Facts of the Case
Contract workers were engaged through a contractor to perform work in an establishment where similar work was also carried out by workmen directly employed by the principal employer. The nature of duties, responsibilities, and working conditions of the contract workers were substantially the same as those of regular employees.
The contract workers sought parity in wages and service conditions. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) examined the matter and passed an order granting wage parity and similar service conditions to the contract workers.
The principal employer challenged the order, contending that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to fix wage rates and service conditions.
Issue Before the Court
Whether the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) had the jurisdiction to adjudicate and fix wage rates and service conditions for contract workers performing the same or similar work as regular employees, and whether such workers were entitled to wage parity.
Held
The Bombay High Court held that:
- Where contract workers perform the same or similar kind of work as workmen directly employed by the principal employer, they are entitled to the same wage rates, holidays, hours of work, and other conditions of service.
- The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) was competent and had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and fix wage rates.
- The order granting wage parity to contract workers could not be said to be without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the challenge to the order was rejected.
Case details:
Date: 03 January 2026
Citation: [2025] 181 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay)
Decision Date: 18 March 2025
Court: Bombay High Court
Law Area: Labour Laws