Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp vs Premlal

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24066 of 2003) WITH C.A. 1047 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2533 of 2004 C.A. 1064 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2551 of 2004 C.A. 1074 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.7219 of 2005 C.A. 1048 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2548 of 2004 C.A. 1049 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2656 of 2004 C.A. 1050 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2652 of 2004 C.A. 1051 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2547 of 2004 C.A. 1052 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2552 of 2004 C.A. 1053 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2650 of 2004 C.A. 1054 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2542 of 2004 C.A. 1056 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2539 of 2004 C.A. 1057 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2658 of 2004 C.A. 1058 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2648 of 2004 C.A. 1059 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2544 of 2004 C.A. 1060 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2543 of 2004 C.A. 1062 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2536 of 2004 C.A. 1063 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2565 of 2004 C.A. 1065 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2653 of 2004 C.A. 1067 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2546 of 2004 C.A. 1068 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2654 of 2004 C.A. 1069 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2646 of 2004 C.A. 1070 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2541 of 2004 C.A. 1055 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2647 of 2004 C.A. 1071 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.4390 of 2004 C.A. 1072 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.5632 of 2005 C.A. 1073 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6093 of 2005 C.A. 1061 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2538 of 2004 C.A. 1066 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2645 of 2004 KAPADIA, J.

As stated above the basic controversy in the present civil appeals is : whether Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood superseded by Clause 19 of 1985 settlement and whether in any event Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood terminated vide Resolution No.8856 of the Corporation dated 31.8.78. At this stage, it may be noted that the controversy arose because a complaint was filed before the Industrial Court at Nagpur Bench in Complaint (ULPN) No.8 of 1992 by one of the employees of the Corporation stating that he was appointed as a daily rated workman on 11.2.88 at the rate of Rs.11.76 per day; that he has been continuously working with the Corporation without any break; that though he was working as a regular employee he was paid wages which had no parity with regular employee; that he was not made permanent in order to deprive him all the benefits of permanency and that he was entitled to be appointed on time scale of pay on completion of 180 days of continuous service in terms of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. In the said complaint after noting the aforestated submissions advanced on behalf of the Corporation, the Industrial Court held, that, as per Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement the workman who was a daily rated workman had put continuous service of 180 days and, therefore, in terms of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement the complainant was entitled to be appointed on time scale of pay and he was also entitled for all the benefits available to the time scale worker. The Industrial Court gave a declaration vide order dated 27.2.97 that the Corporation had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act 1971 by not brining the complainant on time scale of pay in terms of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. By the said order the Corporation was directed to fix the pay of the complainant in the time scale not from the date of appointment but from 6.1.92 (the date on which the complaint was filed).

(The above decision being in modification of the settlement would need the approval of Government).

II.B. The Corporation directed that the pros and cons of the question of paying the persons engaged on work-charged establishment/nominal muster roll according to the time scale rate of pay and extending the other benefits (as mentioned in II.A(2)) to them should be examined with reference to the working conditions, existing rate of payment, etc. and a detailed note in the matter should be submitted to the Corporation, preferably at its next meeting.

19. Absorption of day-rated working after completed service of 180 days -

(ii) As far as possible no appointment except in the category of driver will be made in future without selection of a workmen by the Committee.

(iii) All past cases of daily wagers who are eligible for absorption will be reviewed on the merits of each individual case and as per the laws on the subject.

(iv) As regards surplus staff viz., Watchmen, the information will be called for from the divisions and the cases after examination will be put up to the Corporation Board for its directives."

The grievance of the workmen in the present case is that till today the Corporation has not given to them the benefits available to time scale workers. In the present case, they are not seeking absorption. In the present case, they are seeking wages payable to time scale workers. The topic of absorption is covered by Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement. It states that in all past cases all daily wagers who are eligible for absorption will be given absorption subject to their selection by the competent Select Committee and subject to existence of clear vacancies. This aspect was not there in Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the two clauses operated in different fields. We agree with this conclusion of the High Court in the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, in the present case we are not required to examine the authority of the Joint Committee to cancel Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. In the circumstances, in the present case we are not required to examine the question as to whether the workmen herein are entitled to be absorbed under Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement. These two aspects shall be a matter of separate adjudication. We do not wish to go into these aspects. Suffice it to state that Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement and Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement operate in different fields and, therefore, there is no question of Clause 19 of 1985 superseding Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement.

In the present case, as stated above, the workmen are not seeking absorption. The workmen have reserved their rights to seek adjudication in that regard in a separate forum. Similarly, in the present case, we are not required to go into the question of validity of Resolution No.8856 dated 31.8.78 since in our view Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and Clause 19 of 1985 operated in two different fields. The question of validity of Resolution No.8856 is a matter of separate challenge before a different forum. We express no opinion in that regard. In the present case, we are also not required to quantify the liability of the Corporation. We are deciding this matter only on interpretation of above two Clauses. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Corporation are dismissed with no order as to costs.