Madras High Court
Rep. By Its President vs Chennai Port Authority on 7 November, 2025
W.P.No.22408 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.22408 of 2023
Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees
Canteen Workers Welfare Association
Regn.No.1433/2000
Rep. by its President
No.574, S1, Arivaham Apartments
18th Street, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Koratur, Chennai-600 080. ... Petitioner
vs.
Chennai Port Authority
Rep. by its Chairman
No.1, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600 001. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Declaration, to declare the action of the respondent in not
sanctioning the MACP/ACP, not paying the arrears arising out of financial
upgradation, not issuing 5 gms gold coin to the members of the petitioner
Association, whose names are given in the Annexure to the writ petition as
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently, direct the respondent
to pay the MACP/ACP, pay the arrears arising out of financial upgradation,
Page Nos.1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
W.P.No.22408 of 2023
issue 5 gms gold coin to the members of the petitioner Association, whose
names are given in the Annexure to the writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
Standing Counsel
*****
ORDER
The captioned Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring
that the inaction on the part of the respondent in (i) sanctioning Assured
Career Progression (ACP) to the members of the petitioner Union, (ii) paying
arrears arising out of such financial upgradation, and (iii) issuing 5 grams of
gold to the members of the petitioner Union, whose names are furnished in
the Annexure to the writ petition, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as well as contrary to the terms of the
settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
Facts of the Case:
2. The petitioner Union, representing the canteen workers of the
Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees’ Cooperative Canteen, had earlier
approached this Court in W.P. No. 6872 of 2001, seeking a direction to the
respondents to treat the members of the petitioner Association as regular
employees of the Chennai Port Trust and to extend to them all attendant and
monetary benefits from the date of their appointment, on par with the regular
employees, by declaring them as direct employees of the Chennai Port Trust.
3. This Court, by order dated 24.08.2005, allowed the said writ
petition and held that the regular and permanent employees of the canteen
shall be treated as direct employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The Court
further directed the absorption of temporary employees and the conferral of
permanent status upon them. The said order was confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court by judgment dated 21.02.2006 in W.A. No. 66 of 2006.
The matter was thereafter taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 2010, and by order dated 27.04.2018, the Hon’ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of this Court, thereby rendering the
said directions final and binding.
4. As the directions issued by this Court were not implemented in full
measure, Contempt Petition No. 2163 of 2018 was filed. During the pendency
of the contempt proceedings, the respondent complied with the directions to
the extent of absorbing the services of the members of the petitioner Union
and extending pensionary benefits to the retired employees. However, with
respect to the claim for Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits, this
Court reserved liberty to make a representation to the respondent seeking
such extension. The petitioner Union thereafter submitted a representation.
The respondent, however, failed to consider or accede to the said claim,
thereby compelling the petitioner Union to once again invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
5. Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that a settlement was entered into between the petitioner Union and
the respondent under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
Clause 12 of the said settlement expressly provides for the grant of three
financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression
(MACP) Scheme to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees on completion of 10, 20,
and 30 years of regular service, provided there was no regular promotion
during the said periods and subject to the prevailing conditions of the ACP
Scheme. The clause further stipulates that the modified ACP shall be
operative from the date of the settlement.
6. The learned counsel contended that, pursuant to the judicial
pronouncements referred to supra, the members of the petitioner Union have
been recognized as permanent employees of the Chennai Port Trust who are
grade D employees. Once such permanency has been declared by this Court,
all consequential benefits, including those flowing from the settlement
executed under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1947, ought to follow as a matter
of legal right.
7. The learned counsel further contended that the respondent’s failure
to extend the ACP benefits amounts to an unfair labour practice and is
contrary to the principles of equal pay for equal work. It was argued that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
denial of ACP to a set of employees who stand on the same footing as other
permanent employees constitutes discrimination without any intelligible
differentia, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. It was further submitted that, in the year 2006, all permanent
employees of the Chennai Port Trust were issued 5 grams of gold coins on
the occasion of the 125th Anniversary of the Chennai Port Trust, and the
members of the petitioner Union, being permanent employees, are equally
entitled to the same benefit.
Submissions of the Respondent:
9. Per contra, Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent, submitted that the benefit of Assured Career
Progression is restricted only to regular employees appointed against
sanctioned posts in the establishment, and therefore, such benefit cannot be
extended to the members of the petitioner Union who were absorbed pursuant
to directions issued by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
10. It was further contended that, in Contempt Petition No. 2163 of
2018, this Court had only directed the grant of continuity of service, fixation
of pay, and other attendant benefits, and that no positive direction had been
issued for the grant of ACP benefits.
11. The respondent also submitted that the members of the petitioner
Union do not fall within the ambit of employees who are eligible for MACP,
since there exists no defined hierarchical promotional structure or
performance benchmark applicable to them. It was further argued that Section
18(1) of the Act of 1947, while binding on the parties, cannot override
statutory provisions or administrative eligibility norms governing the grant of
ACP/MACP benefits.
12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
entire record.
13. It is not in dispute that, by virtue of the order of this Court dated
24.08.2005 in W.P. No. 6872 of 2001, affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the members of the petitioner Union have been conferred the status of
permanent employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Once such status has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
attained finality, the respondents are bound to treat them at par with other
permanent employees for all consequential purposes, unless a valid
classification exists based on a rational and reasonable criterion.
14. The settlement executed between the petitioner and the respondent
under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1947 is a binding settlement having
statutory force between the parties to the dispute. Clause 12 thereof
unequivocally stipulates that three financial upgradations shall be granted
under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme to Group ‘C’ and
‘D’ employees on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service,
provided there was no regular promotion during those periods. The said
clause does not create any distinction between employees appointed against
sanctioned posts and those absorbed or regularized pursuant to orders of this
court confirmed by Apex Court.
15. It is a well-settled principle of law that once the employees are
declared permanent, they are entitled to be treated on par with other similarly
placed employees, unless the employer demonstrates a rational basis for
differentiation. In the present case, no such justification has been established
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
by the respondent. The plea that the petitioner’s members were not appointed
against sanctioned posts, and therefore, not entitled to ACP benefits, is
devoid of merit and runs contrary to the binding effect of the earlier directions
issued by this court.
16. The reliance placed by the respondent on the Circular dated
05.10.2023 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India is
misplaced. The said circular merely reiterates the general principles of
ACP/MACP but does not restrict the operation of a binding settlement
executed under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1947, which has statutory force
between the contracting parties. In the absence of any express exclusion,
Clause 12 of the settlement remains fully operative and enforceable.
17. The settlement was entered into in the year 2010, and as on that
date, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.08.2005, had already
directed the respondent to treat the members of the petitioner Union as
permanent employees, which direction was subsequently affirmed by the
Division Bench on 21.02.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
18. Accordingly, it is held that the denial of ACP benefits to the
members of the petitioner Union, despite their absorption and regularisation
of their services as regular employees, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and
contrary to the binding terms of the settlement.
19. However, with respect to the claim for the grant of 5 grams of gold
coins distributed to permanent employees during the 125th Anniversary
celebrations of the Chennai Port Trust, the same is unsustainable. There
exists neither any judicial mandate nor a contractual provision under the
settlement conferring such entitlement upon the members of the petitioner
Union. The said distribution was merely an ex gratia concession
extended at the discretion of the management.
20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the members of the petitioner Union are entitled to the
grant of Assured Career Progression benefits in terms of Clause 12 of the
settlement dated 20.08.2010 entered into between the Chennai Port Trust
Industrial Employees’ Cooperative Canteen and their workmen and the
Respondent - Management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
21. The respondent is, therefore, directed to (i) extend the benefits of
the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme to all eligible members of
the petitioner Union; (ii) determine and disburse the arrears of pay and
allowances arising therefrom within a period of four (4) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order; and (iii) ensure that the computation and
payment are made strictly in accordance with the settlement terms.
22. It is made clear that the members of the petitioner Union shall not
be entitled to any interest on the arrears, provided payment is made within the
stipulated period. However, in the event of default, the arrears shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default until actual
realization.
23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above
terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
07.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
mk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
To
Chennai Port Authority
Rep. by its Chairman
No.1, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600 001.
07.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 07:02:03 pm )
