Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 412
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Subhash S/O Laxmanrao Bramhe – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1567, 709, 710, 712, 720, 721, 722, 723, 778 & 779 of 2025); (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19499, 19868, 19347, 19504, 19506, 19507, 19509, 19510, 19796, 19797, 19798, 19867, 19883, 19916, 19961, 20213, 20214, 20215, 20859, 22553, 22554, 26627, 26630, 28898, 29115, 29116, 29117, 29282, 29310, 29317, 29694, 29695, 29696, 29709, 29710, 29711, 29719, 29720 & 29731 of 2024); Diary No. 15255, 15479, 15842, 16100, 16186, 16613, 16642, 16659, 24449, 24487, 24505, 24535, 24736, 24752, 24802, 24961, 24989, 25538, 25664, 28645, 29142, 29185, 29776, 30015, 30043, 30121, 30205, 31445, 31448, 31553, 32174, 32235, 32437, 32534, 36630, 38413, 38434, 38449, 38460, 38497, 38567, 38575, 38612, 38628, 38693, 38716, 38751, 38780, 38819, 38878, 38909, 39642, 39664, 40173, 40244, 40293, 40315, 40324, 57239, 57444 & 57811 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ritesh Patil, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Deva, Adv. Mr. P. M. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
The court affirmed that salary revisions must adhere to established labor agreements and cannot be made without proper notice, reinforcing the principle of fair labor practices.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court allowed complaints regarding unfair labour practices related to salary revisions, which were contested by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) - The court upheld the Industrial Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to previous settlements and judgments. (Paras 2, 20)
(B) Employment Law - The principle of fair labor practices requires that any revision of pay scales must consider prior agreements and the rights of employees, particularly those who have already been granted benefits under earlier settlements. (Paras 4, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a judgment that upheld the Industrial Court's order, which found the 2015 salary revision by MSRTC to be an unfair labor practice, as it disregarded previous settlements and was made without notice to the employees. (Paras 2, 20)
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the Industrial Court's order, confirming that the 2015 revision was made without proper notice and did not comply with established legal precedents. (Paras 20)
Issues: The main issues included whether the 2015 salary revision was valid given the prior settlements and whether it constituted an unfair labor practice. (Paras 4, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the 2015 salary revision was invalid as it failed to consider the established legal framework and prior agreements, emphasizing that labor practices must be fair and transparent. (Paras 20)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The above batch of appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The impugned judgment refused to interfere with the order of the Industrial Court, which allowed the Complaints filed by the respondents/workmen in the year 2015. By Annexure P-11 order dated 17.08.2018, the complaints before the Industrial Court; with respect to the revision of salaries of the workmen by order dated 10.10.2015, cancelling the fixation of wages granted earlier by order dated 15.03.2010; which was alleged to be an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), were allowed and the revision set aside.
3. We have heard Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the MSRTC”) and Mr. P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. Both the learned Counsel referred to Civil Appeal No. …. of 2025 @Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19507 of 2024; from which we refer to the facts and the history of litigation, the orders in which are also referred from the memorandum of the said case.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant- MSRTC would vehemently argue that the revision of the year 2015 was only in consonance with the order of this Court in Maharashtra SRTC v. Premlal, (2007) 9 SCC 141. The essential controversy was with respect to a settlement in the year 1956, which stood cancelled in the year 1978; both of which related to grant of time scale of pay and other benefits available to regular workers. The terms differed, insofar as the period in which 180 days continuous service as daily wage employee had to be reckoned, was without any stipulation of period as per the 1956-Settlement, while as per the 1978-Resolution it had to be attained within a financial year. Later, there was a Settlement in the year 1985 which provided for absorption of daily wage working staff after completed service of 180 days, subject to conditions of a selection by the competent Selection Committee and only against available vacancies. These provisions were the subject matter of interpretation in Premlal (supra) and it was categorically held by this Court that they have to be read together. It is in that circumstance that the present revision was necessitated in the year 2015, as argued by MSRTC.
5. It is also urged that, the very same conclusion was arrived at in a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2012 produced as Annexure-P-5 which stood approved by the Division Bench by Annexure-P-6 dated 21.08.2012 and the Special Leave Petition filed, stood rejected as per Annexure-P-7 dated 02.05.2000. Annexure- P-7 categorically found that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was in consonance with Premlal (supra). The exercise of 2015 was necessitated, since otherwise it would have created discrimination insofar as the time scale of pay granted to the daily wage workers. The dictum in Premlal (supra) was also followed by a learned Single Judge in Annexure P-10 judgment dated 23.06.2016 with respect to the grant of pay scale to daily wage workers on attaining the eligibility criteria of having worked for 180 days subject to their satisfying all the conditions in the 1978- Resolution and the 1985-Settlement. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of the Industrial Court have to be set aside to bring parity with respect to similarly placed workers. On the apprehension expressed by the respondents that recovery would be affected, the learned Counsel for MSRTC asserts that the appellant does not intend to proceed for recovery but the revisions have to be upheld and this would apply to the workers who are still continuing. It is pointed out that even the persons appointed in the year 1992, who were respondents herein, would
