1997 Supreme(SC) 428

1997(5) Supreme 537
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Process Technicians and Analysts Union -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 1992
Decided on 10-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Madan G. Phadnis, Jitendra Sharma, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Gunwant Dara, (Ms. Minakshi Vij), Advocate for P. Gaur, Advocate.
For the Respondent (Union of India) : T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, K.N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, (K.C. Kaushik, A.K. Sharma,) Advocates for B.K. Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Soli J. Sorabjee, and Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocates, P.H. Parekh and Sameer Parekh, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (Determination of Conditions of Service of Employees) Act, 1988-Section 3-Validity of-Challenged-Power to frame schemes-Not unguided-Guidelines are contained within Section 3 itself-Whether Section 3(2) is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India ?-(No).

       Held : Section 3(1) stipulates that the Central Government should be satisfied, that for the purpose of making the conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Corporation comparable with the conditions of the service of the officers and employees of other public sector companies, it may frame one or more schemes for the purpose of determination of the conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Corporation. It can do this notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law, agreement, settlement, award or other instrument for the time being in force, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. The power to frame the scheme, therefore, can be exercised for the purpose of making the service conditions of the second respondent s employees comparable with those of other public sector companies. This is not unguided power. The guidelines are contained within Section 3 itself. (Para 12)

       Further held : It is to protect the conditions of service of these pre-nationalisation employees that Section 3(2) of the 1988 Act provides that a scheme framed under Section 3(1) may provide for the continuance of the salary and other benefits received by the pre-nationalisation employees. This was done to treat the pre-nationalisation employees in a fair and just manner. It is also necessary to note that by its very nature this group of pre-nationalisation employees was a dwindling group. Originally, there were about 200 such employees who were entitled to their pre-nationalisation service benefits. By the time these appeals came to be filed their numbers had dwindled to 10. We are now informed that there is only one employee now left who in entitled to pre-nationalisation emoluments. In this context, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 3(2) violate Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 14)

       (ii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (Determination of Conditions of Service of Employees) Act, 1988-Section 3-Public Sector wage pattern under the Settlement of 1986-Power given u/s 3 to frame a scheme retrospectively-Challenged-Held, it is open to legislature to make retrospective laws-Statutory scheme made retrospective in exercise of statutory power expressly granted to Central Government cannot be faulted on that ground.

       Held : Under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the said Act an express power is given to the Central Government to give retrospective effect to any scheme framed under sub-section (1) of sub-section (3) of Section 3. The retrospective operation which is given to the Scheme of 1989 is, therefore, under a statutory power so given to the Central Government. Since the scheme regulates the conditions of service of post-nationalisation refinery employees, it must necessarily cover the post-nationalisation period which began from 24th of January, 1976. It is open to the legislature to make retrospective laws. Therefore, the statutory scheme which has been made retrospective in exercise of statutory power expressly granted to the Central Government cannot be faulted on the ground. (Para 21)

       Further held : The retrospective operation given to the scheme framed under the present Act, is within the legislative competence of Parliament. Since the scheme provides for the conditions of service of all employees who joined the second respondent-corporation after 24th of January, 1976, it necessarily lays down these terms and conditions operative from 24th of January, 1976. The scheme also provides emoluments which are higher than the emoluments which the post-nationalisation employees were receiving prior to the coming into effect of the scheme. The scheme also brings into effect the avowed purpose of the 1988 Act which is to make the wage pattern in the second respondent-corporation conform to the wage pattern of public sector undertakings. A legislation which imposes retrospectively a wage pattern may thereby discontinue the application of any earlier settlement by an express legislative provision to that effect. Such legislation is within the legislative competence of Parliament. (Para 25)

       (iii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Determination of Conditions of Service of Post-Nationalisation Refinery Employees) Scheme, 1989-Validity of-Distinction made between pre-nationalisation and post nationalisation employees of refinery -Whether discriminatory?-(No)-Difference between wages received by employees of Marketing Division of second respondent-Corporation-Whether amounts to discrimination under Art. 14 ?-(No).

       Held : The Marketing Division employees, however, were the first to reach settlements with the second respondent agreeing to the application of public sector wage pattern to their wages and emoluments. As a result under the Settlements which are arrived at, the Marketing Division has been receiving emoluments and revised emoluments from time to time. Since the refinery employees did not reach any settlement with the second respondent they are now being governed by the Scheme which was framed by the Central Government under the Act of 1988. It is in these circumstances that there is difference between the wages received by the employees of the two different departments of the second respondent. Each of these employees constitutes a distinct class which is receiving different pay packets because of different circumstances which have affected the wage structure of each class. This cannot be considered as discrimination under Article 14. (Para 27)

       (iv) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Determination of Conditions of Service of Post-Nationalisation Refinery Employees) Amendment Scheme, 1996-Validity of-Scheme excludes from its ambit those employees who have entered into settlements with second respondent pending disposal of this appeal-Whether this is discriminatory?-(No)-It is in valid exercise of statutory powers.

       Held : We fail to see how the distinction made between those employees who have entered into a settlement and those employees who have not entered into a settlement can be considered as discriminatory. The second respondents have even now stated before us that they are willing to sign a similar settlement with the appellant union. The appellant union, however, has declined to do so. Having declined to do so the appellant cannot complain of discrimination. The amended Scheme of 1996 grants further benefits to the employees of the appellant union who are the only group of employees in the refinery not covered by the settlements, by giving them further increases in the manner set out in the amended scheme. The appellant cannot compare the benefits which they get under the amended scheme with the benefits which other employees have got under settlements signed with the employer. Better terms under the settlement may be the result of negotiations between the employer and the employees. These considerations are very different from considerations which govern the framing of a statutory scheme by the Central Government. Such a scheme must necessarily bear in mind the wage pattern in other public sector undertakings and provide for revision of wages based on certain accepted principles for all public sector undertakings. The considerations for framing the amended scheme are different. Those who are governed by a statutory scheme cannot compare themselves with employees who have entered into a negotiated settlement with their employer. The charge of discrimination under Article 14, therefore, cannot be sustained in this regard. (Para 28)

       Further held : It is also pointed out by the appellant that the amended scheme of 1996 now covers only 400 and odd employees who are members of the appellant union. They should not have been singled out. There is, however, no question of singling out any one set of employees out of a large group. The employees who are members of the appellant union being the only set of employees who have not entered into a settlement with their employer, have necessarily to be provided for under a statutory scheme. Such a scheme, therefore, has been framed and the employees cannot complain that they have been singled out. They cannot expect a statutory scheme to give them the benefits of the settlements which the other employees have entered into with the employer. The amended scheme of 1996 is not framed by the employer. It is framed by the Central Government under the statutory provisions of the 1988 Act. The amended scheme of 1996 gives substantial additional benefits to the employees. It is in valid exercise of statutory powers, and is brought into effect from 1.1.1992 since the earlier scheme covered periods upto 1.1.1992. (Para 29)