The authority's order under Section 33-C(1) was valid as the employer failed to dispute the existence of a relevant settlement, maintaining wage parity between contractual and regular employees in line with Supreme Court directives.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) Pawan Hans Limited has filed the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the order dated 27 June 2022 passed by the learned Authority under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate for amount due to the Respondent-Union amounting to Rs.5,80,75,659/- with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum.

2) Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing Helicopter services and functions under the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Government of India. It has employed about 275 regular employees and 305 fixed-term contract employees. It appears that there are two unions formed by the regular employees viz. All India Civil Aviation Employees Union (AICAEU) and Civil Aviation Technical Employees Union (CATEU). It appears that the Petitioner executed Memorandum of Settlement dated 21 August 2019 with AICAEU agreeing for wage revision from 1 January 2017. Similarly, a separate settlement was executed with CATEU on 21 August 2019 for wage revision with effect from 1 January 2017. While the wages of the regular employees of the two Unions were revised, it appears that the benefit of wage revision was not extended to the contractual employees. Respondent No.1 is a Union espousing the cause of the contract employees. Respondent No.1-Union therefore approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) under Section 33-C (1) of the ID Act for issuance of Recovery Certificate complaining that the benefit of pay revision declared vide office orders dated 22 May 2018 and 22 August 2019 were not extended to the members of the First Respondent-Union on the ground that they are contractual employees. In their application, the First Respondent-Union relied on judgment of the Apex Court dated 17 January 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2020 and contended that the Apex Court has treated them on par with the regular employees. Upon receipt of notice, Petitioner appeared before the learned Authority and filed its reply on 21 April 2022. Petitioner contended in its reply that the order passed by the Apex Court for payment of Provident Fund benefits on par with regular employees has been duly complied with. After considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, the learned Authority proceeded to pass order dated 27 June 2022 directing issuance of Recovery Certificate for recovery of amount of Rs.5,80,75,659/- together with interest. Order dated 27 June 2022 is subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

3) When the Petition was first moved on 15 November 2022, the accounts of the Petitioner were frozen for making recoveries in pursuance of the impugned order. This Court therefore passed following order on 15 November 2022:

Mr. D’souza, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cur- rent bank account No.70010200000208 of the petitioner in the Bank of Baroda, Vile Parle Branch has been freezed by the competent authority for recovery of amount as per recovery certificate dated 06.07.2022. Mr. Naidu submits that dues of the workers-employees as on 31.10.2022 is approximately Rs.7,66,27,466/-. The petitioner is a public sector under- taking under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In my opinion, instead of freezing the bank account in its entirety, Bank of Baroda could be di- rected to permit the petitioner to operate the bank account No.70010200000208 by retaining an amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/-. This would be subject to further orders that would be passed by this Court upon hearing the parties and the same is without prejudice t