Gujarat High Court
Hindustan Chemicals Company vs Cyanides And Chemicals Karmachari ... on 17 September, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 746 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12844 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 746 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HINDUSTAN CHEMICALS COMPANY
Versus
CYANIDES AND CHEMICALS KARMACHARI SANGH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISARG DESAI and MS PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI for
GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 17/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
1. Admit. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate waives service
of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2023
rejecting the captioned writ petition challenging the award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat dated 13.04.2018 in
Reference (IT) No.04 of 2012.
3. At the outset, Mr. Nisarg Desai, learned advocate
appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal as
well as the learned Single Judge have erred in not appreciating
the fact that none of the 17 respondents, who approached the
Industrial Tribunal by way of Reference (IT) No.04 of 2012
were signatory to settlement dated 21.03.1996. Mr. Desai,
learned advocate has invited attention to Clause 7 of the
settlement dated 21.03.1996 and has submitted that the terms
of the settlement were only applicable to those employees,
who were in employment before 31.12.1994 and the benefits
arising out of the settlement will not be applicable to those
employees such as the respondents since they joined the
Company after 31.12.1994. He has submitted that the learned
Single Judge as well as the Industrial Tribunal have erred in
granting the benefits arising out of the settlement dated
21.03.1996. It is submitted that the respondents are though
paid wages as per the wage structure of the settlement, they
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
are not entitled to allowances as mentioned in the settlement
as they are required to fulfill other conditions of the
settlement. He has also referred to the appointment
letters/joining reports of the respondents, which are placed on
record in the Civil Applications. He has submitted that
admittedly, all the respondents, who are 17 in number, were
appointed in the year 1996 and they had joined in the year
1996 after the cut-off date, as mentioned in the settlement.
He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in
error in granting the benefits to the respondent employees
despite recognizing the settled legal precedent that the
settlement dated 21.03.1996 was a settlement under Section
2(p) read with Section 18(1)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and was binding to the employees who have signed the same.
Learned advocate Mr.Desai in support of his submissions has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan and Ors., (2000) 1 S.C.C. 371. Thus, it is urged
that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge ought not
have conferred the benefits as prayed for by the respondents
by invoking the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Thus,
it is urged that the impugned judgment and award of the
Industrial Tribunal as confirmed by the learned Single Judge
may be set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Dipak Dave,
learned advocate for respondent No.1-employees has submitted
that impugned judgment and award may not be quashed and
set aside and the same is precisely passed by the learned
Single Judge by placing reliance on catena of judgments of the
Supreme Court. It is submitted that in fact by the settlement
arrived at between the employees who are employed by the
appellant, the Company has adopted the basic pay structure as
mentioned in paragraph No.11. It is contended that in fact
the respondent - employees were discriminated with regard to
the payment of allowances and wages though they were doing
the same work in the same department to those employees
who are signatory to the settlement. Learned advocate Mr.
Dave has invited the attention of this Court to the findings
recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in the award and has
submitted that the Tribunal has precisely held that the
respondents cannot be discriminated by conferring the benefits
akin to their colleagues, who are working in the same
department. It is thus, urged that the judgment and award
passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal may not be interfered with.
5. We have heard learned advocates for the respective
parties. The facts which are established from the pleadings are
that the Dakshin Gujarat General Mazdoor Union (DGGMU)
arrived at the settlement with the appellant - Company on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
21.03.1996 under the provisions of Section 2(p) read with
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Clause 7 of
such settlement is as under:
"7. Applicability: That the terms of the settlement shall be
applicable tot he permanent workman employed in the company
on 31st December, 1994 and are still in employment of the
Company. Further it is clarified that no benefit in any manner
will be payable to those workman who have joined the company
or who will be joining the company after 31st December, 1994."
6. The entire case of the appellant - Company as well as
the respondent - employees is in Clause 7. A bare reading of
Clause 7 manifests that the terms of the settlement would be
applicable to the permanent workmen, who are employed in
the Company on 31.12.1994 and are still in employment and
no benefit in any manner will be applicable to those workmen,
who have joined the Company or who will be joining the
company after 31.12.1994. It is not in dispute that the
respondent - employees have been appointed shortly thereafter
in May, 1996. By the very said settlement in Clause 11 the
Company has decided to adopt the basic wage structure. The
same is as under:
"11. Basic Wage Structure
The company has a gradation system as under and as per that
work category and designation. The same will continue
Grade I : 55020-950
Grade II : 400-15-700
Grade III : 250-12.5-500
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
Grade IV : 200-10-400
Grade V : 150-7.5-300
7. Along with the basic structures, in paragraph No.14,
Dearness Allowance as well as Other Allowances have been
fixed which are to be paid to the employees. It is not in
dispute that all the respondents, who are 17 in numbers, are
working in different departments having similar wage structure
however, they are not granted all the allowances attached to
the wage structure, which have been extended to their
colleagues who are working along with them. Taking into
consideration the aforesaid aspects that they are doing the
same work, the Industrial Tribunal has allowed the reference
proceedings arising from the demand raised by the respondent
- employees who are also the members of the same Union.
The Industrial Tribunal after examining the issue of the cut-
off date and the respective settlement, allowed the proceedings
and directed the appellant - Company to give the benefits
which are arising from the settlement dated 21.03.1996.
8. The appellant - Company has specifically raised the
contention that since it is a settlement under Section 2(p) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same cannot be extended
to those workmen who are not signatory to the settlement.
The learned Single Judge, after recording the submissions and
after considering the respective submissions has held thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
"9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
having considered the terms of the settlement as well as the findings
given by the Tribunal to extend the benefits of the settlement dated
21.03.1996 to the 17 employees who have joined the services admittedly
after 31.12.1994 on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", it
would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Jagjit Singh & Ors(supra) wherein it is held as under:
" 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.
Anyone, 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 dependants 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."
10. The above decision of Apex Court has been applied in case of Sabha
Shanker Dube (supra) as under:
"10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit
Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage
employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual
basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the
minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their
performing the same duties which are discharged by those
engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After
considering several judgments including the judgments of this
Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court
held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at
the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the
regular employees holding the same post.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are
unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the
Appellants herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of
the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the
rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their
services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down
by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed
in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled
to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in
service."
11. In view of the above dictum of law, it cannot be said that the
Tribunal has committed any error by invoking the principle of "equal
pay for equal work" when it is not in dispute that 17 employees were
discharging the same duties in the employer company as being
discharged by other employees appointed prior to 31.12.1994.
12. In such circumstances, reliance placed by the learned advocate for
the employer company on the decisions relating to cutoff date would
not be applicable in the facts of the case. The Apex Court in case of
Mohammad Alimam and others (supra) was considering the entitlement
of pensionary benefits as per Resolution No.1500 dated 5.11.1980
introducing the General provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-grauity benefit
scheme to the retired employee. The Apex Court in context of such
scheme has analysed the import of cut-off date whereas in the facts of
the case, 17 employees of the workers' Union as well as other
employees were discharging similar duties and therefore, as per the
principle of "equal pay for equal work" the benefit of the settlement
has rightly been extended.
13. xxxxx
14. As held by the Apex Court in case of National Engineering
Industries Ltd. (supra), such settlement is required to be considered in
two categories i.e. one arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings
and second, arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings.
Admittedly, the settlement dated 21.03.1996 was arrived at outside the
conciliation proceedings and therefore, as per section 18(1) of the ID
Act, the same would be binding only to the parties to the agreement
and cannot be extended to others. However, in view of principle of
"equal pay for equal work" the provisions of section 18(1) and the
settlement arrived at under section 2(p) of the ID Act has rightly been
extended to the employees who have been discharging the same duties
as the terms of settlement was only for three years having limited
period.
15. Similarly decision in case of Dharappa(supra) would not be helpful
to the employer company because workmen could not have been denied
the benefits of principle of "equal pay for equal work" on the ground
of delay if any, more particularly, when there is no time limit
prescribed for making reference to the Labour Court under section 10(1)
(c) and (d) of the ID Act inasmuch as 17 workers were discharging their
duties continuously from the date of their appointment till reference
was made and therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute has become
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
stale or ceased to exist as held by the Apex Court in the said
decision."
9. It is not in dispute that all 17 employees who are the
respondents, are doing the same work as their colleagues and
hence, even if they are not signatories to the settlement, they
cannot be denied the allowances/wages on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work'. It is not the case of the appellant-
Company that the work done by the respondent-employees is
not similar to the work which is being done by their
colleagues in the same departments. There is no difference
pointed out before the Tribunal or before this Court regarding
nature of work and duties performed by the respondents and
their colleagues who are signatory to the settlement. Once, the
appellant-Company has adopted the pay structure and the
allowances attached to such pay structure, the same will be
applicable to all the set of employees on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work', unless it is shown that the work
and duties are different. If the submission of the appellant-
Company is accepted then there would be two set of
employees working in the same department performing similar
work/duties, having two different wages/allowances, which
would create a class within class. Learned advocate appearing
for the appellant-Company was unable to point out any
distinguishing feature from the conditions of the settlement,
which the respondents are not fulfilling. Hence, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/746/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
respondents cannot be discriminated so far, the payment of
wages/allowances is concerned only on the ground that the
settlement will not apply to them since they were not
signatory to such settlement, and were appointed after the
settlement. The respondents could not have been signatory to
the settlement, since they were appointed subsequently, and
they cannot be denied the benefit of allowances/wages of
settlement which flow from the basic wage structure. The
appellant-Company cannot deny the allowances attached to the
wage structure, in wake of the fact that the respondents are
being paid the wages as per the basic wage structure stipulated
in the settlement. The entitlement of allowances follows as a
necessary corollary to the attached basic wage structure.
10. We do not find the judgement and order passed by the
learned Single Judge tainted with any vice of illegality or
infirmity. Hence, the present appeal does not merit acceptance.
The same is dismissed.
11. Consequentially, the Civil Application(s) also stand(s)
disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./11
