Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madanlal Rathore vs Indore Malwa United Mills on 3 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
1 WP-5180-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5180 of 2017
MADANLAL RATHORE
Versus
INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dravinee Dubey appearing on behalf of Shri Shashank Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.07.2017
passed by the learned Industrial Court, Indore in M.C.C. No. 45/MPIR/2016,
whereby the application for rectification under Section 67 of the Madhya
Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 preferred by the petitioner was
rejected upholding the earlier order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Labour
Court, Indore in Misc. Case No. 35/MPIR/2001.
Brief facts of the case
2. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the National Textile
Corporation (M.P.) Ltd. on 01.02.1977 and was posted at the Indore Malwa
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
2 WP-5180-2017
United Mills, Indore which is one of the units managed by the NTC in
Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Canteen
Supervisor on 14.08.1979. It is the case of the petitioner that one Shri Yusuf,
who was also working as a Canteen Supervisor in another NTC unit namely
Kalyanmal Mills, Indore was drawing a higher pay scale under the Central
Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern, whereas the petitioner though
discharging identical duties and responsibilities in another unit of the same
employer i.e NTC, was being paid under a lower scale governed by the
Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern. Being aggrieved by this
disparity, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.05.1985 through
the Manager (Administration and Coordination), Indore Malwa United Mills
to the competent authority of NTC (M.P.) Ltd. seeking parity in the matter of
pay and allowances on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The said
representation was duly forwarded to the higher management but remained
unaddressed. Finding no response or relief from the management, the
petitioner accordingly filed Case No. 236/97-MPIR invoking the jurisdiction
of the Learned Labour Court, Indore under the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 praying for a direction to the
employer to extend to him the same scale of pay and benefits as were being
paid to Shri Yusuf and other similarly placed Supervisors under the same
management.
3. The Learned Labour Court, Indore after due consideration of the
pleadings and material placed before it, passed an order dated 02.11.1999
allowing the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was entitled to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
3 WP-5180-2017
the same grade and scale of pay as that of the Canteen Supervisor working in
Kalyanmal Mills and directed that the benefit of pay parity be extended to
him with effect from 01.07.1995. The said order thus recognized and
affirmed the right of the petitioner to equal remuneration for equal work
under the same employer.
4. The respondents carried the matter in appeal before the M.P.
Industrial Court, Indore in Appeal No. 953/MPIR/1999 which affirmed the
order of the Learned Labour Court and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the
respondents further approached the High Court in W.P. No. 1357/2001
which was also dismissed. They further approached the Apex Court by SLP
(Civil) No. 3085/2007, which was also dismissed on the ground of delay.
Thus, the order of parity granted by the Learned Labour Court dated
02.11.1999 remained undisturbed and thereby attained finality. In
compliance with the said order, the management computed arrears of pay on
the basis of the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) scale and not on the
CDA pattern which the petitioner claimed to be entitled to and certain
payments were made by the management through Fixed Deposit Receipts
(FDRs) as partial satisfaction of the claim: ₹1,25,000/- deposited on
01.12.2003, ₹6,27,193/- deposited on 14.02.2005 and further deposit of
₹1,87,711/- towards difference of pay. According to the petitioner, these
computations were incorrect and incomplete since they were based on the
IDA pattern, whereas the CDA pattern had been extended to similarly
situated employees such as Shri Yusuf.
5. The claim of the petitioner rested upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
4 WP-5180-2017
Apex Court in the cae of Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association v.
Jute Corporation of India Ltd. reported in 1990 (3) SCC 436, wherein
directions were issued for bringing all Central Public Sector Undertakings
including NTC to a uniform pay structure based on the Central Dearness
Allowance pattern effective from 01.01.1989. Pursuant to this judgment,
NTC issued circulars adopting the recommendations of the High Power Pay
Committee, which stipulated that employees appointed on or after
01.01.1989 would be governed by the IDA pattern and those appointed prior
thereto would continue on the CDA pattern unless they opted otherwise.
Relying upon the said circular and Supreme Court directions, the petitioner
contended that having been appointed in 1977 and promoted in 1979 both
prior to 01.01.1989, he squarely fell within the category of employees
entitled to the Central pattern of Dearness Allowance (CDA). As the
management continued to deny him this benefit, the petitioner initiated
proceedings under Section 108 of the MPIR Act by filing Miscellaneous
Case No. 35/MPIR/2001 before the Labour Court, Indore seeking
determination and execution/enforcement of his claim of arrears of pay and
allowances on the Central pattern. The Learned Labour Court by its order
dated 06.09.2016 however dismissed his application holding that the benefit
of CDA pattern was not applicable to him and that he had already been paid
arrears as per the IDA scale applicable to his post.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an application
for rectification under Section 67 of the MPIR Act before the M.P. Industrial
Court, Indore which was registered as M.C.C. No. 45/MPIR/2016. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
5 WP-5180-2017
petitioner therein contended that the Learned Labour Court had erred by
adopting an erroneous cut-off date and by misreading the directions
contained in Jute Corporation of India (supra), particularly the clauses
relating to continuation of pre-1989 employees under the C.D.A. pattern. The
Learned Industrial Court after hearing both parties passed the impugned
order dated 19.07.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner holding that in
terms of the circulars issued by the NTC, the IDA pattern was applicable to
the post of the petitioner and that the Learned Labour Court had not
committed any error warranting rectification. Aggrieved by the above and
left with no further remedy, the petitioner has approached this court seeking
allowance as per CDA pattern.
Submission by Petitioner
7. Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Labour Court as well as the learned Industrial Court have gravely
erred in holding the petitioner to be governed by the IDA pay scale. He
further submits that the said judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association v. Jute Corporation
of India Ltd. reported in 1990 (3) SCC 436 was rendered with a view to
bring about parity in pay structures and to eliminate discrepancies in
dearness allowance patterns across Central Public Sector Undertakings
(CPSUs). All CPSUs including the NTC were directed to bring parity in pay
scales with Central Government patterns including the grant of CDA-based
scales with effect from 01.01.1989. He has pointed out that the circular
issued by NTC in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Jute
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
6 WP-5180-2017
Corporation (supra) clarified that IDA scales would apply to those appointed
on or after 01.01.1989 and that those appointed earlier would continue under
the CDA pattern, unless a specific option was exercised to shift to the IDA
regime. The petitioner having been appointed on 01.02.1977 and promoted
as Canteen Supervisor on 14.08.1979 had never exercised such an option to
switch to the IDA pattern and was, therefore, entitled to the CDA pattern of
pay. Learned counsel further submits that the grievance of the petitioner
stemmed from the incorrect application of the IDA scale to his dues for the
period from 01.07.1995 to 31.05.2003. The denial of CDA-based benefits to
the petitioner, while the same continued to be extended to Mr. Yusuf who
was identically situated and working in another NTC unit in the same city,
amounted to hostile discrimination and the same ought to have been
extended to the petitioner in light of the order dated 02.11.1999 passed by
the learned Labour Court, which had directed parity. It is further submitted
that the reliance placed by the learned Industrial Court on the date
01.01.1989 as a cut-off was misplaced since the circulars issued by NTC
themselves protected the existing employees under the CDA pattern, unless
they opted out. Learned counsel further submits that the reasoning of the
learned Industrial Court that the petitioner had failed to produce Mr. Yusuf's
appointment letter was unsustainable since pay slip of Mr. Yusuf had been
placed on record demonstrating his continued placement under the CDA
regime. Thus, the finding of learned Labour Court that the entitlement of
petitioner is limited to IDA arrears from 01.07.1995 was contrary to the
settled legal position and it overlooked the terms of appointment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
7 WP-5180-2017
employment conditions prevailing at the time of initial induction. Hence, he
prayed that the petition be allowed.
Submission by Respondent
8. Shri Dravinee Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent supported
the impugned orders by submitting that the petitioner had already been paid
the arrears computed on the basis of the applicable IDA scale and that the
petitioner was not governed by the CDA pattern and had never been
appointed under such terms. He further submits that the judgment of the
Apex Court in Jute Corporation (supra) does not create any automatic or
enforceable right in favour of the petitioner as the same is subject to the
discretion of the employer and the specific terms and conditions of
service. Learned counsel further submits that the circulars of NTC clarified
that employees appointed prior to 01.01.1989 under the IDA pattern would
continue under that regime and that the learned Labour Court and learned
Industrial Court had properly appreciated the material available on record
and applied the law properly without any perversity or material irregularity
and thus prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Appreciation & Conclusion
9. During the argument, Shri Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner
has produced the copy of order dated 2.11.1999 passed by the learned
Labour Court, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to get the pay scale of
Canteen Supervisor with other benefits only. The aforesaid order was
confirmed by the learned Industrial Court, M.P., Indore vide order dated
30.3.2001 by dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent. Thereafter the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
8 WP-5180-2017
Writ Petition No.1358/2001 and SLP both were dismissed. By the aforesaid
order of Labour Court the petitioner was held entitled to get the pay scale of
Canteen Supervisor and other consequential benefits. There was no such
issue between the parties regarding grant of pay scale under CDA pattern or
IDA pattern. No issue was framed by the learned Labour Court and no such
finding was given granting the benefits of CDA pattern to the petitioner.
10. The aforesaid judgment dated 2.11.1999 had attained the finality.
The petitioner filed an execution application claiming arrears by calculating
the wages by applying CDA pattern, which was rightly objected by the
respondent. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 6.9.2016 observed
that the present petitioner prepared a calculation sheet under CDA pattern
and also admitted that he was not newly appointed. The learned Labour
Court held that the arrears of pay under the IDA pattern has been rightly paid
to the petitioner and he is not entitled for any other amount.
11. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1979 i.e. prior to
1.1.1989, therefore, the IDA pattern would not be applicable to him. When
the petitioner approached the learned Labour Court in the year 1997, the
Apex Court had already passed the judgment in the case of Jute Corporation
(supra), specifically holding that the employees appointed earlier in IDA
pattern will continue to be governed in accordance with the terms and
conditions of their appointment. The employees appointed on or after
1.1.1989 will be governed by such pay scale and allowances, as may be
decided by the government i.e. CDA. Admittedly the petitioner was
appointed prior to 1.1.1989. The learned Industrial Court has also examined
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31916
9 WP-5180-2017
the entire issue and rightly dismissed the appeal.
12. So far as the claim of parity by this petitioner with Mr. Yusuf is
concerned, the learned Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court have
rightly held that the petitioner has not produced any appointment letter to
show his date of appointment as well as terms & conditions of the
appointment. Even in this petition nothing has been filed except pay-slip,
which nowhere disclose the date of appointment as well as the terms and
conditions of the appointment.
13. Since in the judgment dated 2.11.1999 there was no issue in
respect of grant of CDA or IDA, therefore, Shri Patne is not right in making
submission that in the execution proceedings, the learned Labour Court and
Industrial Court have wrongly examined the decision. There is concurrent
findings recorded by both Labour and Industrial Courts which are not liable
to be disturbed in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The petition is absolutely devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
trilok
