Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Central Electronics Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
General Secretary, Central Electronics Limited Retired Employees Welfare Association & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 93 of 2023 and CM APPLs. 5981-5983 of 2023, LPA 94 of 2023 and CAV 76 of 2023 and CM APPLs. 5984-5987 of 2023 & LPA 98 of 2023 and CAV 77 of 2023 and CM APPLs. 6064-6067 of 2023
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Shaurya Mittal and Mr. Kumar Shubham, Advocates with Mr. Rajat Garg, GM, CEL, for the Appellant in LPA 93/2023 and CM APPLs. 5981-5983/2023 & LPA 94/2023 and CAV 76/2023 and CM APPLs. 5984-5987/2023.
Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar and Mr.Naved Khan, Advocates, for the Respondent in LPA 93/2023 and CM APPLs. 5981-5983/2023 & LPA 94/2023 and CAV 76/2023 and CM APPLs. 5984-5987/2023.
Mr. Avnish Singh, CGSC with Mr.Aditya Vikram Dembla, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2/UOI in LPA 93/2023 and CM APPLs. 5981-5983/2023 & LPA 94/2023 and CAV 76/2023 and CM APPLs. 5984-5987/2023.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Respondent/UOI in LPA 98/2023 and CAV 77/2023 and CM APPLs. 6064-6067/2023.
The court upheld the entitlement of employees to interest on belated payments of revised wages, considering the delay caused by the employer and the profitability of the employer from 2012 onwards.
Headnote:
Interest - Pay Revision - 6th Central Pay Commission - Central Public Sector Enterprises - 6th CPC - MOU - Delay in Payment - Interest on Belated Payments - Service Conditions
Fact of the Case:
The retired employees of Central Electronics Limited (CEL) sought enhanced pay revision from 01.01.2007. Despite an MOU for the revision, the payment was delayed by the employer, leading to the employees filing writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge directed the employer to pay interest at 6% per annum on the revised wages from January 2012 till the date of actual payments, considering the delay in payment and the employer's profitability from 2012 onwards.
Issues: Delay in payment of revised wages, entitlement to interest on belated payments, and the legality of granting interest in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found merit in the employees' submission and held that the employer should pay interest on the belated payments from 2012, considering the delay and the employer's profitability. The court also noted that the delay in payment was due to the Competent Authority's approval, and the employees were not at fault.
Final Decision: The Appeals were dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge to pay interest at 6% per annum on the revised wages from January 2012 till the date of actual payments, to be concluded within three months.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) are arising out of a common judgment dated 01.12.2022 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) Nos.13739/2021, 13917/2021 & 13944/2021.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Respondent Association - which is an association of retired employees who have attained the age of superannuation and retired from Central Electronics Limited (CEL), came up before this Court claiming enhanced pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2007.
3. The facts of the case further reveal that the Appellant/CEL is a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Science & Technology. It came into existence in the year 1974. As per the averments made in the Writ Petitions as well as in the LPAs, it is an undisputed fact that in the year 2006, the Government of India announced the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Based upon the recommendations of the CPC, the pay of Government servants and the other employees working in Public Sector Undertakings/other Government Organisations was enhanced w.e.f. 01.01.2007. The Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 09.11.2006 providing a methodology of pay revision in the Central Public Sector Enterprises all over the country w.e.f. 01.01.2007.
4. Finally, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the employees and the Appellant organization on 23.12.2010 in respect of revision of pay for Non-Executives w.e.f. 01.01.2007. It was resolved that all regular employees of CEL - who were on its roll as on 01.01.2007, would be entitled to higher pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007 subject to approval of the Competent Authority.
5. It is an undisputed fact that in spite of there being an MOU - which is not disputed by the Appellant organization, the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007 was not paid to the employees. In those circumstances, the employees/retired employees through their association came up before this Court by filing writ petitions.
6. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the learned Single Judge was informed that the Appellant/Employer has paid enhanced wages/ arrears of enhanced wages, however, there is a delay of 15 years in making the said payment. It was also argued before the learned Single Judge that the Appellant Organisation started earning profits (as per the Balance Sheets) from 2012 onwards, and therefore, at least from the year wherefrom the Organisation is running profitably, the employees should be paid interest also.
7. The learned Single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions by passing the following order on 01.12.2022:
"1. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents submit that the arrears due to the Petitioners on account of enhanced wages due to pay revision with effect from 01.01.2007 have been released to the Petitioners.
2. Petitioners in W.P.(C) 13739/2021 are present in person and acknowledge the receipt of the arrears towards enhanced wages. It is, however submitted that wages were to be revised in 2007 and there is a delay in payment of nearly 15 years and thus, the Respondents should be directed to pay interest on belated payments, at least from 2012, from which year, admittedly, Respondents are earning huge profits.
3. This Court finds merit in the submission of the Petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that the Respondents shall pay interest to the Petitioners @ 6% per annum, on the amounts released to them, on account of revised wages from January, 2012, till the date of actual payments.
4. Writ petitions are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms."
8. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the Court granted interest @ 6% per annum, on the amounts released to the employees, on account of revised wages from January, 2012, till the date of actual payments.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Organisation has vehemently argued before this Court that grant of interest by the learned Single Judg
