An Equal Pay Order For BHEL Jhansi Contract Workers has been set aside by the Allahabad High Court, which says equal pay can be claimed only by contract workers who prove, with oral and documentary evidence, that their work matches that of regular employees in quality and sensitivity.
Prayagraj: A 2005 order of the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, which gave equal pay to 265 contract workers at the Jhansi unit of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), has been set aside by the Allahabad High Court. The claim goes back to the authority for fresh consideration, to be decided within six months [Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. State of U.P. and Others].
The judgment was pronounced on October 15, 2026 by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, after being reserved on October 9. For BHEL, Abhishek Mishra, Ashish Mishra (who argued), Kandarp Narayan Mishra and Sandeep Saxena appeared; K.M. Asthana argued for the BHEL Contract Workers Union.
Equal pay is enforceable, but not mechanically
Equal pay, the Court held, can be enforced, but it is not a mechanical rule. Only a contract worker who proves that he actually did the work of regular employees, equal in quality and sensitivity, can claim it, and the burden of proving this is on the worker. Sharing a designation does not suffice. The Court found the Commissioner’s analysis cursory: the comparative chart was no more than a list of names, designations and contractors, the experience certificates pointed to daily-rated office and photocopying roles, the duty charts showed only shift assignments and the log-books showed generator operation. Nothing on the record set the contract workers’ work against that of regular employees.
there must be specific consideration and reasons
No reasons had been given for applying the equal pay principle, and the finding lacked a proper evidentiary basis. That, the Court said, justified interference in certiorari jurisdiction.
The 2005 order and the writ against it
Proceedings began when the Union went to the Labour Commissioner under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Its members, it said, had worked through successive contractors for years on work of a permanent nature and deserved wages and allowances equal to those of regular unskilled BHEL employees. The Commissioner agreed by an order dated January 5, 2005, relying on BHEL orders, gate passes, wage slips, log-books, duty rosters, experience certificates and an inspection report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi.
BHEL took the order to the High Court in Writ-C No. 22701 of 2005. On May 6, 2005, recovery against BHEL was stayed, with the workers’ right to proceed against the contractor preserved. The petition then remained pending for over two decades, and the Union never filed a counter-affidavit. In an earlier writ decided on August 19, 2025, the Court had declined regularisation of the workers, holding that whether the contracts were sham was a question for an industrial tribunal.
What each side argued
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Charanjit Singh and Jagjit Singh, BHEL argued that contract workers have no right to equal pay, and that the Commissioner never examined similarity of work, qualifications, experience and responsibilities. The Union’s answer was that its documents showed the workers doing the same work as regular employees, and that findings of fact should not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction.
Back to the Commissioner
The Labour Commissioner’s order of January 5, 2005 was set aside and the matter remitted. A fresh order has to be passed within six months from the date a certified copy of the judgment is placed before the authority, and the writ petition stands disposed of on those terms.
What the ruling means for such claims
Evidence of what work was actually done, and not job titles or length of service, decides an equal pay claim by contract workers. An authority that does not record reasons comparing the work of the two groups risks having its order set aside.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited through its Executive Director v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Others [Writ-C No. 22701 of 2005]
Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Abhishek Mishra, Ashish Mishra, Kandarp Narayan Mishra and Sandeep Saxena for BHEL; K.M. Asthana and others for the respondents