Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5177
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
T.A. Sugumaran
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.A.Nos. 450 to 457, 395 to 449,, 740 to 753, 1655, 1679 to 1685, 1885 to 1897, 2248 to 2260 & 2292 to 2359 of 2010 & 1839 to 1842 of 2009 & Connected Mps
Decided On : 02-12-2010
For the Appellant:T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for T.V. Krishnamachari, K. Maheswaran, Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for R. Pathiban, G. Rajan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - Mrs. Malarvizhi Vijayakumar, Spl. Govt. Pleader, R3 - Mrs. G. Thilakavathy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employees' claim for inclusion in the Common Cadre after its abolition was not maintainable due to delay and laches, and the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act precluded them from claiming different salary structure during its currency.
Headnote:
Common Cadre - Inclusion of Posts - G.O.Ms.No.866, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983, Section 75(2) - The court discussed the legality and correctness of the claim made by employees for inclusion of their posts in the Common Cadre subsequent to its abolition. The court analyzed the delay and laches in the employees' claim, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, and the impact of the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the employees' claim.
Fact of the Case:
The employees sought inclusion of their posts in the Common Cadre after its abolition, claiming parity in pay scales. The court found that the employees' claim was delayed and lacked merit due to the long delay in raising the issue and the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employees' claim was not maintainable due to delay and laches, and the settlement under Section 18(1) precluded them from claiming different salary structure during its currency. The court also held that the employees' claim after the abolition of the Common Cadre was not justified.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included delay and laches in the employees' claim, the legality of the claim for inclusion in the Common Cadre, and the impact of the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the employees' claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employees' claim was not maintainable due to delay and laches, and the settlement under Section 18(1) precluded them from claiming different salary structure during its currency. The court also found that the employees' claim after the abolition of the Common Cadre was not justified.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeals challenging the directions given by the learned Judge to include the subject posts in the Common Cadre Service and dismissed the second batch of appeals confirming the dismissal of the writ petitions.
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J
1. The legality and correctness of the claim made by a section of employees of various Sugar Mills for inclusion of their posts in the Common Cadre Service subsequent to the abolition of the Common Cadre and the rejection of the said claim by the Director of Sugar, is the question which arises for determination in this batch of writ appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners, who have filed writ petitions claiming parity are hereinafter referred to as "the employees" and the contesting respondents in those writ petitions as "Management". The background summarised:
3. The employees were all working in various posts in category "C" Supervisory cadre in the Sugar Mills, both in the co-operative as well as in the Public Sector. Though, some of the posts in the "C" category Supervisory Cadre were included in the Common Cadre Service, the posts where these employees were working were not included in the Common Cadre. This made them to file writ petitions in the year 2007 claiming parity in pay scales. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to consider and dispose of the individual representations. Accordingly, the representations were considered by the Director of Sugar and they were rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders of rejection, batch of writ petitions were filed.
4. Writ Petition Nos.25895 of 2008 etc. batch came up for consideration before a learned Judge and the writ petitions were allowed directing the concerned respondents to revise the pay scales of the petitioners therein on par with the scale of pay of the erstwhile supervisory "C" cadre employees included in the Common Cadre. Another batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23428 of 2009 etc. batch came up before another learned Judge and those writ petitions were dismissed by holding that it was not possible to include the posts held by the petitioners in the Common Cadre Service.
5. The Management as well as the concerned employees have come up in appeal challenging the order passed in the respective batch of writ petitions.
6. Before the learned Single Judge the writ petitioners in the first batch contended that the Commissioner of Sugar was not empowered to choose the post for inclusion in the Common Cadre, out of the grades in Supervisory "C" and as such, all the posts in Supervisory "C" grade should be included in the Common Cadre. They have placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench dated 12 July 2007 in W.A.No.4074 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "Chandras case") in support of their contention that there was no basis for selecting few posts for inclusion in the Common Cadre and excluding other posts. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Chandras case in the judgment dated 12 July 2007 in W.A.No.4074 of 2004 squarely applies to all the Supervisory "C" category employees like the petitioners and non-inclusion of their posts would violate the equality clause as provided under attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. Feeling aggrieved the Government as well as Management have filed writ appeals.
7. The other batch of writ petitions came up for consideration before another learned Judge. The learned Judge was of the view that inclusion of particular posts in the Common Cadre was essentially a management function and in the absence of particulars furnished by the writ petitioners regarding the nature of duty and the qualification for the posts in question, it was not possible to arrive at a conclusion that a discriminatory treatment was given to the writ petitioners by not including their posts in the Common Cadre. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the employees are before us. The rival arguments:
8. The submissions of the leaned Senior Counsel on behalf of the employees are as follows:
(a) As per order in G.O.Ms.No.866 dated 25 July, 1984, the Government
