Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 216
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Bhupendra Kumar Chimanbhai Kachiya Patel – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Divisional Controller GSRTC Nadiad – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2546 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6105 of 2018) (D.No.35250 of 2017)
WITH
Prakashbhai Ishwarlal Dave – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Divisional Controller GSRTC Junagarh – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2594-2598 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 28519-28522 of 2017)
WITH
Ghanshyam Pratapsinh Parmar – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Divisional Controller GSRTC Rajkot – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2556-2592 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.6115-6151 of 2018) (D. No.30838 of 2017)
AND
Pradhyumansinh Lakhuba Jadeja – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Divisional Controller GSRTC – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2547-2555 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6106-6114 of 2018) (D. No.30615 of 2017)
Decided On : 07-03-2018
IMPORTANT POINTS
Settlement arrived at between employer and employees is binding on both.
When the employer follows the procedure agreed in the settlement, it cannot be interfered.
Concurrent findings of facts by courts below is binding on Supreme Court.
Headnote:(a) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 – Section 18 – Settlement arrived at between employer and employees – Binding on both. (Para 25)
(b) Labour law – Settlement – Clause 20 – Corporation absorbing employees and granting benefits in accordance with procedure agreed in clause 20 of the settlement – No interference warranted. (Para 28, 29, 30)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Writ Court and LPA Court of High Court returning concurrent findings of fact – Binding on Supreme Court. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
Prafulbhai Hirabhai Solanki, one of the appellants herein joined the services of the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation on 04.06.1999 as "Badali Kamdar" at Mangrol Depot of Junagadh Section. He was employed as a daily wager.
Clause 20 of the Settlement between the Corporation and the Union of the workers provides a procedure as to how, when and in what manner, the services of a “Badali Kamdar” shall be regularized and absorbed in a particular time scale.
In terms of clause 20 of the settlement dated 21.12.1989, the Corporation considered the case of the appellant and other badali kamdars when the vacancy occurred in the permanent cadre on the post of Conductor and accordingly he was absorbed as permanent employee in the services of the Corporation on 27.08.2008 as Conductor. He was given the time scale with effect from 27.08.2008 with consequential benefits.
Dispute arose between the regularized badali kamdars and the corporation as to from which date this benefit, namely, to make them permanent and the benefit of time scale should be granted to such “Badali Kamdars”.
The issue was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the employees and accordingly granted them benefit, which the employees had claimed.
The Corporation filed writ petition which was allowed.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the employees and upheld the orders of the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be interfered.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 28.06.2016 in L.P.A. No.550/2016, dated 22.08.2017 in L.P.A. Nos.1344-1347/2017, dated 04.07.2017 in L.P.A. Nos.1185/2014, 1199, 1252, 1254-1259, 1261, 1264-1278, 1281-1282, 1284, 1286, 1288, 1291-1296, 1298/2014, dated 21.06.2016 in L.P.A. Nos.497-500/2016 and dated 04.07.2017 in L.P.A. Nos.1200, 1287, 1289, 1297 and 1299/2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and upheld the orders passed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail. The facts and the legal issues arising in all these appeals are similar in nature except the date of their initial appointment and absorption, which vary from case to case in the service of the respondent.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts mentioned in Reference I.T. No.44/2011 (Annexure- 12) of the paper book of SLP Nos. 28519-28522 of 2017 are mentioned hereinbelow.
5. Prafulbhai Hirabhai Solanki, one of the appellants herein, whose name appears at page 18 of the SLP paper book joined the services of the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation) on 04.06.1999 as "Badali Kamdar" at Mangrol Depot of Junagadh Section. He was employed as a daily wager.
6. On 21.12.1989, the Corporation and the Union of the workers entered into a settlement to resolve several issues in relation to the service conditions of the employees working in the Corporation.
7. Clause 20 of the Settlement, which is relevant for the disposal of these appeals, deals with the placement and absorption of the “Badali Kamdar” in the permanent cadre of conductor and grant of time scale to such workers. It provides a procedure as to how, when and in what manner, the services of a “Badali Kamdar” shall be regularized and absorbed in a particular time scale.
8. In terms of clause 20 of the settlement dated 21.12.1989, the Corporation considered the case of the appellant when the vacancy occurred in the permanent cadre on the post of Conductor and accordingly he was absorbed as permanent employee in the services of the Corporation on 27.08.2008 as Conductor. He was given the time scale with effect from 27.08.2008 with consequential benefits.
9. Like the appellant, there were hundreds of “Badali Kamdars" who were working in the set up of Corporation at all relevant time. The cases of these “Badali Kamdars” were also considered with a view to find out as to whether they fulfill the conditions set out in clause 20 for making them permanent in the set up of the Corporation as and when permanent vacancy arose in the cadre of the Conductor. Those who were found eligible and fulfilled the conditions were absorbed in the services as permanent employees on the post of conductor and were accordingly given the time scale on the expiry of completion of 180 days in the cadre. They were accordingly made permanent in terms of the procedure prescribed in clause 20 of the Settlement.
10. This led to dispute between these employees and the Corporation. The dispute was essentially as to from which date this benefit, namely, to make them permanent and the benefit of time scale should be granted to such “Badali Kamdars”.
11. According to the employee (appellant), he was entitled to claim this benefit on his completing 180 days of the service from the date of his initial joining of the service as "Badali Kamdar", i.e., 04.06.1999 and not from the date of absorption whereas according to the Corporation, the appellant and all employees alike the appellant were rightly granted the benefit on the expiry of 180 days from the date when they were absorbed in the permanent cadre, i.e., as in the case of the appellant from 27.08.2008 as provided in clause 20 of the Settlement.
12.
