Discrimination in working conditions between similarly situated employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution, and claims regarding continuing wrongs can be raised despite delays.

ORDER :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

Challenging the award passed by the 1^st respondent in and by which amount equal to proportionate pay for the extra days of work done by the workmen was directed to be paid by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case as evidenced from the chronology of evidence as captured by the trial court that the members of the 2^nd respondent Union were employees of the petitioner till 16.08.1991 and, thereafter, their services were transferred to the 3^rd respondent and they are working with the 3^rd respondent. The working hours of the petitioner was from 0900 to 1730 hours across the country and that the 2^nd and last Saturdays were closed holidays along with all Sundays and other notified holidays. In the year 1985, the five day week system was introduced by the Government of India, which was adopted and implemented by the petitioner and all the rules and regulations of the petitioner were followed suit by the 3^rd respondent as well. Before following the five day week pattern, the petitioner was following six day week for all its officers, irrespective of the status of the office. Only at the sub-stations, shift duty was followed in order to maintain power generation, transmission and distribution system, which was adopted by the 3^rd respondent as well. It is the case of the workmen that the persons, who are employed in a five day work place are working 40 hours a week, while the persons employed in a six day work place are working 48 hours a week, thereby, the employees in a six day week system, do additional 52 days work in a year, which is discriminatory and, therefore, the persons, who are employed in a six day work place, should be compensated for the additional work done by them. Therefore, the industrial dispute was occasioned at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein.

3. Upon reference of the dispute to the trial court, the same was taken up on file and on behalf of the 2^nd respondent herein, W.W.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.W-1 to W-24 were marked. On the side of the petitioner herein/1^st respondent therein, M.W.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M-1 to M-23 were marked. On analysing the materials, both oral and documentary, the trial court allowed the dispute and directed the petitioner herein to compensate the workmen employees of the projects and sites, except those working in shifts, who were in service on 2.8.1985 and continued to be in service as on 20.04.2007 by paying the amount equal to proportionate pay for the extra days of work done by them after 20.04.2007, within the time prescribed failing which the amount will carry interest at 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that the dispute is hopelessly time barred by limitation, as it has been raised almost after a quarter of a century with no explanation being given for this inordinate delay of 22 years.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the working hours in the Corporate Office/Regional Officer prior to the issuance of the circular dated 2.8.1985 vis-a-vis the project office is entirely different as the Corporate Office/Regional Officer were working 6 days a week with 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays as off days every month unlike the project offices, which were functioning six days working without any off days on 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays. Thus there was a distinct and different working hours between Corporate Office/Regional Office and Project/site Office since inception of the 3^rd respondent and, therefore, the inference that the employees at Project/Site Office were having holidays on two Saturdays prior to introduction of 5 day week system is erroneous.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Memorandum of Conclusion dated September, 1985, had already concluded the demand between the trade unions and the 3^rd respondent and the issue not having been diligently raised