Madras High Court
The General Secretary vs The Regional Manager on 18 June, 2021
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
The General Secretary,
Central Bank of India Staff Union,
New No.89, Azis Mulk 3rd street,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai – 600 0063 .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Raheja Complex, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2. .. 1st Respondent
2.The Presiding Officer,
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court,
First Floor, Block No.6,
Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road,
Chennai – 6. .. 2nd Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against
the order dated 05.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.37814 of 2007 by the learned Single
Judge of this Court.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For R1 : G.Anand
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.06.2012
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37814 of 2007, whereby the award
passed by the second respondent/Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court (in short “CGIT”) was reversed, holding that 14 part-time Safai
Karmacharies were not eligible for the benefit of Settlement reached under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 28.11.1997.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are stated below:-
The first respondent bank entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 28.11.1997, with the appellant union for
enhancement of wages to part-time employees. Subsequent to the settlement, the
Central Office as well as Regional Office of the first respondent issued their
Circular Nos.CO:PRS:97-98-194, dated 10.12.1997, and RO:PRS:98-99-1273, dated
18.09.1998, respectively, incorporating the terms of settlement dated 28.11.1997.
By the said settlement dated 28.11.1997, wages per week for part-time employees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
were fixed as stated below:-
(a) From 01.11.1992 to 31.10.1994:-
Upto 3 hours --> Rs.130/- p.m.
More than 3 hours but
less than 6 hours --> Rs.375/- p.m.
(b) From 01.11.1994
Upto 3 hours --> Rs.150/- p.m.
More than 3 hours but
less than 6 hours --> Rs.440/- p.m.
Subsequent to the above settlement dated 28.11.1997, another bipartite settlement
dated 27.03.2000 was entered into between the appellant union and the first
respondent Bank for enhancement of wages payable to the part-time employees,
by which, the wages per week for part-time employees were fixed with effect
from 01.11.1997 as stated below:-
a) Upto 3 hours --> Minimum of Rs.450/- p.m.
b) More than 3 hours but
less than 6 hours --> Rs.740/- p.m.
However, the first respondent bank did not pay the aforesaid enhanced wages to
the said 14 part-time Safai Karmachari employees as per the above said
settlements and circulars.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
3. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant union, would submit
that although 14 part-time Safai Karmacharis have worked for long number of
years, they have not been paid with arrears and on the request made by them,
the first respondent bank has not given valid reason for rejecting their claim.
When the appellant Union claimed on behalf of 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies
that in the case one Mrs.Chinnamma/part-time employee, the respondent bank
has paid enhanced wages till the date of her absorption as per the settlements
and circulars and she has been paid arrears for the period from 01.11.1992 to
30.06.1998. Therefore, the respondent bank cannot adopt any hostile
discrimination in respect of 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies, as it is nothing but a
clear unfair labour practice and victimization. To this stand, the respondent bank
replied that with regard to regular part-time Safai Karmacharies, they were given
arrears of wages in terns of settlement dated 28.11.1997 and circulars issued
therein by the bank, but, in respect of casual labourers, who were working in
cleaning of the branches in the absence of regular Safai Karmacharies, they were
given arrears of wages from the date they were regularized as they were not
entitled to claim arrears for the period before their regularization as per the
settlement dated 28.11.1997. Therefore, in view of the said reply, the appellant
union raised an industrial dispute on 21.07.2000 for non-payment of enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
wages to 14 part-time Safai Karmachari employees as per the settlements and
thereupon, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, referred the industrial
dispute for adjudication to the second respondent/CGIT; and the issue that was
referred for adjudication is:
“Whether the claim of Central Bank of India
Employees Union for payment of arrears with all
attendant benefits to 14 Safai Karmacharies as per the IBA
settlement by the management of Central Bank of India is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are
entitled to? ”
Therefore, the CGIT took up the industrial dispute as I.D.No.422 of 2004 on its
file and after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both
parties, the CGIT passed the award holding that the claim of the appellant union
for payment of arrears with attendant benefits for the 14 Safai Karmachari
employees is legal and justified. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent
bank filed W.P.No.37814 of 2007, whereby learned Single Judge, by order
05.06.2012, reversed the award of the CGIT. As against which, the present writ
appeal has been filed.
4. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, argued that the twin
reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge to reverse the well-reasoned award
passed by the CGIT are unsustainable, inasmuch as the first reasoning given by
the learned Judge that the settlement dated 28.11.1997 has not included the
casual labourers is unfounded, since the settlement was rightly appreciated and
interpreted by the CGIT holding that the settlement includes casual labourers/14
part-time Safai Karmacharies; and the second reasoning that extending the
benefit of settlement in respect of 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies will amount to
second benefit is also untenable, since a similarly placed person, namely,
Chinnamma who was also a part-time employee, was paid arrears of enhanced
wages even prior to 1996 as per the settlement dated 28.11.1997 which clearly
prescribes that from the period from 01.11.1992 to 31.10.1994, the part-time
employees are entitled to enhanced wages if they worked more than 3 hours at
Rs.130/- per month and if they worked more than 3 hours but less 6 hours, the
are entitled to Rs.375/- per month and from 01.11.1994, if they worked more than
3 hours, they are entitled at Rs.150/- per month and if they worked more than 3
hours and but less than 6 hours, they are entitled to Rs.440/- per month. But,
while passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge has not taken note of
the benefit given to a similarly placed person/Mrs.Chinnamma. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
impugned order is unsustainable in law and hence, the appeal deserves to be
allowed.
5. Mr.G.Anand, learned counsel for the first respondent bank, would
submit that the twin reasons given by the learned Single Judge for reversing the
impugned award passed by the CGIT, holding that the settlement dated
28.11.1997 has excluded the casual workers as it is included only regular Safai
Karmacharies; and another reason that extending the benefit of settlement dated
28.11.1997 to 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies, who were working only as casual
employees, will amount to second benefit, are based on records. It is further
submitted that after those 14 workers were regularized from 1996 to 1998, they
were paid with enhanced wages as per the settlement dated 28.11.1997, therefore,
the appellant union cannot ask for extending the benefit to any casual part-time
Safai Karmacharies, who were not included in the settlement dated 28.11.1997.
6. Explaining further, learned counsel for the first respondent argued that
the respondent bank allots number of workmen for each branch as the
appointment can be made only against the sanctioned posts, which is being
followed as per the law, and only the candidates sponsored by the employment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
exchange are being appointed as Safai Karmacharies. Each branch will have a
Safai Karmachari and if there is no regular Safai Karmachari working in any
branch, then the Branch Manager concerned might can engage a local woman
menial to attend the cleaning work and such casual labourers are paid fixed daily
rate of wages. So far as regular Safai Karmacharies are concerned, they are
governed by Awards and Settlements made under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act from time to time and the wages of regular Safai
Karmacharies of a Branch are fixed based on the number of working hours in a
week or floor area. So far as regular Safai Karmacharies were concerned, they
were given arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28.11.1997, however, in
respect of casual labourers who were attending the cleaning of the branches in
the absence of a regular Safai Karmachari, they were given arrears of wages from
the date they were regularized. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant union
to say that any of the regular Safai Karmacharies who were entitled to the
revised arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28.11.1997, were not paid
the arrears. Insofar as the casual labourers, who were attending the cleaning of
the branch, were concerned, they were not paid the wages of regular Safai
Karmachaires and therefore, they cannot make a claim as applicable to the
regular Safai Karmacharies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
7. It is further submitted that out of 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies,
Mrs.N.P.Prabavathy, who was made as regular Safai Karmachari from
27.07.1996, was was given scale of wages from 27.01.1998 and thereby she was
paid arrears of wages as per the settlement dated 28.11.1997 with effect from
27.07.1996, however, she is not entitled to claim any arrears prior to 27.07.1996.
Similarly, Mrs.Kanchana was absorbed as regular part-time Safai Karmachari
from 27.07.1996 and thereby she was also paid arrears from the said date. With
regard to Mrs.Regina Rani, she was elevated to scale of wages from 11.02.2000
and thereby from 05.11.1999, she was paid wages as applicable to regular part-
time Safai Karmachari and in fact, she has given a letter dated 05.11.1999 stating
that she will not make any claim for arrears of wages in terms of settlement
dated 28.11.1997. In regard to other persons, since they have not worked as
regular part-time Safai Karmachari during the perid from 01.11.1992, they are not
entitled for the enhanced wages as per the settlement dated 28.11.1997. Hence,
comparing these 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies with that of Mrs.Chinnamma is
wholly unfair and unjustified, as in the case of said person, as could be seen from
Ex.W8, she was working as part-time Safai Karmachari from 01.11.1992 onwards.
Even if it is assumed that she was paid arrears of wages prior to her absorption, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
would not be a ground to grant relief to the 14 persons concerned in this case,
because, a wrong cannot be continued as a right and the CGIT ought to have
decided the case on merits with regard to the demand of union instead of mainly
relying on arrears of wages paid to Mrs.Chinnamma. Therefore, the question is
whether the case of the appellant union is covered by the settlement dated
28.11.1997. In fact, they have paid wages from the date they became regular
part-time Safai Karmacharies. Prior to that date, since they have worked only as
casual part-time Safai Karmacharies, they are not covered under the settlement
dated 28.11.1997. This aspect has been rightly appreciated by the learned Single
Judge, therefore, no interference is called for, he pleaded.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available before this Court.
9. It is an admitted fact that those 14 part-time Safai Karmachari
employees were regularized from 1996 to 1998 and they were all paid wages as
per the settlement in the scale of pay depending upon the work. It is admitted by
the first respondent bank that the candidates sponsored by the employment
exchange are appointed as Safai Karmachari and if there is no regular Safai
Karmachari working in any branch, then the concerned Branch Manager is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
entitled to engage a local woman menial to attend the cleaning work and such
casual labourers are being paid fixed daily rate of wages. However, they cannot
compete with the regular Safai Karmacharies, because they are governed by the
Awards and Settlements made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act from time to time. With regard to regular Safai Karmacharies, the wages are
being fixed based on the number of working hours in a week or floor area.
Whileso, on 28.11.1997, a settlement was reached between the first respondent
bank and the appellant union, by which, the wages for regular Safai
Karmacharies having less than 6 hours per week were fixed as stated below:-
(a) From 01.11.1992 to 31.10.1994:-
Upto 3 hours --> Rs.130/- p.m.
More than 3 hours but
less than 6 hours --> Rs.375/- p.m.
(b) From 01.11.1994
Upto 3 hours --> Rs.150/- p.m.
More than 3 hours but
less than 6 hours --> Rs.440/- p.m.
10. Besides, Clause 5 of Settlement dated 28.11.1997 reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
“5. The settlement provides for
improvement/modifications in the existing provisions
relating to;
-- Part time employees drawing consolidated
wages.
......................”
In the present case, all these 14 part-time Safai Karmacharies were admittedly
regularized from 1996 to 1998 and therefore, they were paid arrears of wages
based on the consolidated wages from the date of their respective regularization,
hence, they are not entitled to the benefit of Settlement dated 28.11.1997 to claim
arrears before their respective date of absorption, as the Clause referred to
therein will not apply to them.
11. It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank
before the CGIT that Mrs.N.P.Prabavathy, who was made as a regular part-time
Safai Karmachari from 27.07.1996, was given scale of wages from 27.01.1998 and
thereby she was paid arrears of wages as per the settlement dated 28.11.1997
with effect from 27.07.1996 and therefore, she is not entitled to claim arrears prior
27.07.1996. Likewise, Mrs.Kanchana was absorbed as regular part-time Safai
Karmachari from 27.07.1996 and therefore, she was paid arrears from the said
date. Similarly. Mrs.Regina Rani, who was appointed as regular part-time Safai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
Karmachari on 05.11.1999, was elevated to scale of wages from 11.02.2000 and
therefore, from 05.11.1999 onwards, she was paid wages as applicable to regular
part-time Safai Karmachari, and in fact, she has given a letter dated 05.11.1999
stating that she will not make any claim for arrears of wages in terms of
settlement dated 28.11.1997. Thus, when a specific plea was taken by the first
respondent bank in their counter affidavit that those 14 casual part-time Safai
Karmacharies were paid wages as applicable to regular part-time Safai
Karmacharies only after their absorption in the regular service, it was not even
denied by the appellant union. Therefore, the reasonings given by the learned
Single Judge to reverse the award that (a) settlement dated 28.11.1997 has
excluded casual workers; and that (b) extending the arrears to those 14 workmen
will amount to second benefit, are absolutely in order.
12. One of the arguments of Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the
appellant union, is that Mrs.Chinnamma, a part-time employee, was paid
enhanced wages till the date of her absorption as per the settlements and
circulars and therefore, the same analogy has to be followed in the case of these
14 similarly placed part-time Safai Karmacharies. The said submission cannot be
sustained for the simple reason that the settlement dated 28.11.1997 does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
cover the casual part-time Safai Karmacharies. Thus, for the reasons stated
above, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.
(T.R., J.) (V.S.G., J.)
18.06.2021
rkm
Index:yes
speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
To
The Presiding Officer,
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court,
First Floor, Block No.6,
Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road,
Chennai – 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rkm
W.A.No.2134 of 2012
18.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
