Delhi High Court
Bihar Rpnn Ltd. Employees Union ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 16 January, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.01.2019
+ W.P.(C) 13178/2018
BIHAR RPNN LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikalp Mudgal and Mr.Kshitij
Mudgal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Devank Maheshwari, Adv. for
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja, Ms. Surabhi
Maheshwari and Mr. Ashwani Ahuja,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition to assail the order
dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal') in OA No.4247/2017. The said Original
Application preferred by the petitioners had been rejected by the Tribunal by
the impugned order.
2. Petitioner No.1 to 4 are Trade Unions of employees of the respondent-
National Projects Construction Corporation Limited ('NPCC'). Petitioner
No.5 is one of the employees of the respondent-NPCC and he is a member
of the petitioner No.1-Bihar RPNN Ltd. Employees Union.
3. The petitioners earlier preferred Civil Writ Petition No.1052/2001
before this Court, which was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as
OA No.4247/2017. The petitioners, in the said petition, sought a direction
in the nature of Certiorari to quash the office order No.500137/IDA dated
29.05.1998. By the said office order, the respondent considered the issue of
revision of IDA pay-scales and allowances in respect of the employees, who
were below Board level Executives, Staff Members in NPCC w.e.f.
01.01.1992. Para 2.3 of the said order specifically excluded, from the said
revision, inter alia, "Workman whose wage revision is governed by
Instrument of negotiations". The petitioners, whose wages were admittedly,
governed by instruments of wage revision, were aggrieved by their
exclusion from application of the said office order No. 500137/IDA dated
29.05.1998, on the ground, that it violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution of India. They claimed that the payscales payable to them
under the negotiated settlement were less than those payable to those
employees who were covered by the IDA pay-scales. They sought extension
of the benefit of the said office order to them as well.
4. The Tribunal rejected the said Original Application on the ground that
so far as the members of the petitioner-Unions are concerned, their
Federation i.e. All India NPCC Employees Federation, which was the
federation of all the Associations and Unions, had entered into agreements
with the respondent-NPCC, which are in force and, therefore, they were
bound by the same.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
petitioners have been discriminated against, inasmuch as, the pay-scales
prescribed by the respondent vide office order dated 29.05.1998 are higher,
when compared with the pay-scales fixed under the negotiated settlements
with the aforesaid Federation. Learned counsel further submits that though
the petitioners are Unions and its members, and even though their
Federation has been entering into wage settlements with the management of
NPCC from time to time - which are valid and binding, the said settlements
are a result of an unequal bargaining power between the employer and the
employees. Learned counsel also places reliance upon 'State of Punjab and
others vs. Jagjit Singh and others', (2017) 1 SCC 148, and in particular,
para 57 and 58 of the said decision, which read as follows:
"57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of
"equal pay for equal work" has emerged from an
interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution.
The principle has been expounded through a large number
of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law
declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the
courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. The parameters of the principle have been
summarised by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been
extended to temporary employees (differently described as
work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and
the like). The legal position, relating to temporary
employees has been summarised by us, in paragraph 44
hereinabove. The above legal position which has been
repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine
artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee
engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another
who performs the same duties and responsibilities.
Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides
being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage,
does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and
shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and
dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his
integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer
immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of
paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate
constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out
of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels
involuntary subjugation."
6. The aforesaid decision is relied upon to submit that the respondent is
discriminating by providing different pay-scales in respect of the similarly
situated employees.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the
pay-scales prescribed by the office order dated 29.05.1998 are in respect of
the Non-Executive, Supervisory and Executive posts. The classification is
not premised on unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled or highly skilled categories
of workmen. Thus, it would not be correct to compare the revised pay-
scales of workmen/members of trade unions - as agreed in the settlement
with their Federation, with the revised pay-scales prescribed in the office
order dated 29.05.1998. He has argued that there is no discrimination, as
these are distinct classes of workman, whose classification is reasonable - as
those governed by wage settlement agreements on the one hand, and those
who are not so governed, for the purpose of prescribing the pay scales.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the
impugned order and the record, we are of the considered view that there is
no merit in this petition.
9. The terms of settlements entered into between the Federation of
Unions have to be read comprehensively. The said negotiated settlements
not only prescribe the revised pay-scales in respect of the unskilled, semi
skilled, skilled and highly skilled categories of workmen, they also cover
other aspects of emoluments, such as Dearness Allowance, Variable DA,
Fitment benefit, Fitment formula etc. Thus, it would not be correct to pick
out only the bare revised pay-scales prescribed in respect of the aforesaid
four categories of workmen to claim that the same are less than pay-scales
prescribed by the office order dated 29.05.1998 in respect of employees who
are not covered by negotiated settlement agreements.
10. The settlement dated 11.10.1996 stipulated in Clause (19), that "This
settlement will be in force from 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1996 and thereafter
shall continue to be operative till it is terminated by the process of law". The
said settlement has been followed up with subsequent settlements arrived at
between the Federation of Unions and workers of NPCC, and the NPCC. A
fresh wage settlement was entered into by the said Federation of Unions on
21.12.2010, which was to be effective from 01.01.2007 and remained
effective till 31.12.2014 or thereafter, till terminated by the process of law.
This settlement itself recorded that, for the period between 01.01.1997 to
31.12.2006, wage revision stood settled and no arrears were to be paid. A
further settlement was entered into between the Federation of Unions of
Employees of NPCC, and the NPCC on 28.02.2018. The said settlement
provides in Clause (25) that the same would be enforced from 01.01.2017 to
31.12.2026 and thereafter, shall continue till it is terminated by the process
of law. Thus, the position is that even now there is a current, valid and
enforceable settlement between the workmen of NPCC represented through
its Federation of workers unions on the one hand, and the NPCC on the
other hand.
11. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Jagjit Singh
(supra) is misplaced. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that
the principle of equal pay for equal work is binding on all Courts in India
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and is a facet of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Where, however, there are two different sets of
employees in an organisation, one which is governed by one pattern of pay-
scale and the other is governed by another pattern of pay-scale, it cannot be
said that different norms with regard to payment of salary and allowances
cannot be prescribed in respect of such different classes of
workmen/employees. Workmen/employees falling in each of the two sets
would constitute two separate classes, and such classification is reasonable,
inter alia, for the purpose of fixation of the salary/wages and allowances.
Thus, there is no discrimination made out and no breach of Articles 14 and
16 made out.
12. What the petitioners are endeavouring to do - by raising the aforesaid
issue, is to walk out of the settlements entered into by them through their
Federation with the employer-NPCC. In our view, this cannot be permitted,
as it would amount to discrediting such settlements and destroying their
sanctity. The same would upset the industrial environment and peace.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the subsequent
settlements of the years 2010 and 2018 would not be for the benefit of those,
who have retired before the said settlements were entered into. We do not
find any merit in this submission. Pertinently, the petitioners have not
clearly stated whether such retired employees are part of their Unions or not.
Secondly, no such retired employee has come forward to raise any such
claim. If such a claim were to be raised, it would have been adjudicated in
appropriate proceedings. Though the petitioners claim that their federation
did not have equal bargaining power with the employer while arriving at
negotiated settlements, we cannot agree with this submission. The
Federation of Unions would have had representations of the elected Union
leaders. They had no compulsion to accept the wage settlement offered by
the NPCC if the same was not acceptable to them. This submission of the
petitioners cannot be entertained in these proceedings as it involves
determination of factual aspects of coercion and undue influence.
14. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly
dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 16, 2019/nn
