IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 4724 of 2022 Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors.

Vs.

National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Puranjan Pal.

For the Respondent/ : Ms. Sabita Roy.

Union of India For the Respondent No. 16 : Ms. Sreetama Biswas.

Hearing concluded on : 26.02.2025 Judgment on : 20.03.2025 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The present writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents to recall the impugned award dated 30.07.2020 made by the National Industrial Tribunal (N.I.T.), Calcutta in connection with reference N.T. Case No. 03 of 2005.

2. The petitioners’ case in short is that proposing to change, and/or extend the weekly working hours from 37 ½ hours to 44 hours a notice u/s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued by the management on 16th January, 1988 purportedly based on the recommendation of the 4^th Pay Commission.

The purported notice dated 16^th January, 1988 u/s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 proposing to enhance the working hours pursuant to the recommendation of the 4^th Pay Commission was not accepted by any of the 3 units. A joint Action Committee was formed to resist the move by peaceful trade union methods by forming a Joint Action Committee.

3. The 5^th Pay Commission in its recommendation recorded at paragraph 66.34 of the report as follows:

“66.34- “In the light of the foregoing detailed discussion, we do not find any preponderant reasons for maintaining the status quo in regard to working hours only in the three Mints at Calcutta, Hyderabad and Mumbai. This would also be discriminatory and contrary to the basic principle of „equal pay for equal work‟. It is our considered view that the 44-hour week should be strictly enforced in these three Mints. The substantial improvements in the scales of pay and other benefits that we have recommended would be applicable in the case of the Mint employees only if the working hours are increased to 44 hours per week.”

4. As per the direction of CAT, Calcutta in M.A. 74 of 2001 and O.A.

115 of 2001, the said issue of 19% compensation for difference of working hours between 37 and ½ hrs. and 44 hrs per week was forwarded to the Ministry which was then decided by the Finance Secretary, Government of India with the following observations:–

“On consideration of all the papers and information available on this subject including the order of Department of Expenditure. I am of the view that there is no justification for grant of any compensation on account of increase in working hrs. in the Govt. of India Mint from 37 ½ hours per week of 44 hours per week. Further for the period from 1.1.96 to 26.5.1998 when the Mints did not work for 44 hours per week, the pay should be proportionately depressed.”

5. The issue of 19% compensation was referred to various Regional Labour Commissioners which were seriously contested by the Mint Authorities.

6. Since various Regional Labour Commissioners filed their respective failure reports to the government and the decision of the conciliation officers for referring the disputes was accepted by the Unions as well as the management, ultimately by a notification dated 6.6.2005 the Central Govt. constituted a National Tribunal and referred the dispute as National Tribunal case No. 03 of 2005 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 6.6.2005.

7. The ‘reference’ before the National Tribunal was:-

“Whether the action of the management of India Government Mint in not granting of 19% compensation for the increased working hours from 37 ½ hours per week to 44 hours per week (as per recommendation of the 5^th Pay Commission) is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?‟

8. Vide an award dated 30.7.2020 the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata held as follows:-

“Thus, it is concluded that the workmen of India Government Mint repr