Case: Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Workers Union &amp; Others Vs. Mining &amp; Allied Machinery Corporation Limited &amp; Others

By this petition, the petitionersa Trade Union seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. to pay wages to its workmen at the regional workshop at Nagpur on par with the wages paid to the workers of the Durgapur establishment of the Corporation by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as the workmen at both places perform identical duties and functions.2.The Mining and Allied Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) carries on the business of production and maintenance of machineries principally required in the business of mining. The said company has a factory at Durgapur and several service centres in different states. The said company has a Regional Workshop at Hingna Industrial Estate, Nagpur, and also a service centre at 19, New Verma Layout, Nagpur. The company for the purposes of its factory has classified its employees into four categories, namely(i) unskilled workman, (ii) semi skilled workman, (iii) skilled workman, and (iv) highly skilled workman. The workmen employed at Nagpur factory are transferable to Durgapur plant of Corporation or any other Government of India Undertaking.3.In the Regional Workshop at Hingna, components are manufactured which are used in the production of machinery at Durgapur factory. It is the case of the petitioners that the services of the employees of the company are governed by the Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

Reasoning:
8.Having heard the counsel on both the sides and after going through the material placed before us, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition and the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable in the present case. From the facts on record, it is evident that the Regional Workshop at Nagpur is registered as a Factory under the Factories Act and the wage settlement governing wages and service matters of the workmen at Nagpur were duly registered with the Competent Authority under the B.I.R. Act. Moreover, the elected representatives of the workmen at Nagpur had arrived at wage settlement with the company and on completion of wage settlement period they have submitted fresh charter of demands and the matters are being processed. In this view of the matter, it is open to the petitioner to adopt proper remedy under the B.I.R. Act regarding their wage structure. The contention of the respondents that the Regional workshop at Nagpur was treated as independent establishment is supported by the fact that all these years separate wage settlements were arrived at between the employees of the Regional Workshop at Nagpur and the Company. Moreover, the respondents have clearly brought out on record that the nature of duties and functions of the workers in the Regional Workshop at Nagpur are different from that of the workmen at Durgapur in the form of chart (Annexures IIVI) which the petitioners have not been able to controvert. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents that the Regional Workshop at Nagpur is an independent establishment with different duties and function and hence the company is not liable to pay wages to the workmen of the Regional Workshop at Nagpur on par with the wages of the workmen of Durgapur plant has to be accepted. Accordingly, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable to the case of the petitioners.9. Besides this, it has been urged by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the establishment in question has been declared as a sick industry, V.R.S. has been offered to the employees, the factories are closed and permission to closure has been granted by Govt. of India, against which petition was filed and it was dismissed. These developments have to be borne in mind while exercising writ jurisdiction in respect of an establishment which is already declared sick industry and in financial crisis.10. Various decisions of the Apex Court enunciating the principle of "equal pay for equal work" were cited on behalf of the petitioners. In all those cases, the Apex Court on the facts of each case came to the conclusion that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" are applicable. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that petitioners have not brought out any material to show that the duties and functions exercised by the workmen in the Regional Workshop at Nagpur are identical to that of the workmen at Durgapur and hence the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable in the instant case. Moreover, the petitioners could not controvert the dissimilarities in the duties and functions between the workmen of Regional Workshop at Nagpur and the workmen at Durgapur. The petitioners have failed to establish that the pay scales given to the workmen at Durgapur qua the workmen at the Regional Workshop at Nagpur amounts to discrimination. Hence, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction especially when there has been separate wage settlement arrived at between the workmen of the Regional Workshop at Nagpur and the Company. Moreover, the said wage settlement has been in operation all these years and further settlement in the light of fresh charter of demands is pending before the company.