Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Chennai Port Authority – Respondent
W.P.No.22408 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Balan Haridas
For the Respondents: Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, Standing Counsel
Employee status entitles recognition of equal benefits under applicable laws, unless legitimate distinctions are justified.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case pertains to a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, regarding the denial of Assured Career Progression and associated benefits under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Facts: The petitioner represents canteen workers claiming breaches of entitlements, backed by previous court rulings supporting their permanency as employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Findings: The Court reiterated the binding nature of the settlement and ruled the respondents' denial of ACP benefits was unjustified.
Issues: The Court framed the question around the arbitrary denial of ACP to recognized permanent employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that once permanent status was declared, entitlement to equal treatment followed unless a rational basis for differentiation existed, which was absent here.
Result: The respondent is directed to grant ACP benefits and disburse arrears within four months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. permanent employee status confirmed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claim for acp benefits justified under prior contractual settlements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. restriction on acp benefits lacks legal basis. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 4. equality of treatment for permanent employees mandated. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. denial of benefits deemed arbitrary. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. court orders implementation of acp benefits. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
The captioned Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondent in (i) sanctioning Assured Career Progression (ACP) to the members of the petitioner Union, (ii) paying arrears arising out of such financial upgradation, and (iii) issuing 5 grams of gold to the members of the petitioner Union, whose names are furnished in the Annexure to the writ petition, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as well as contrary to the terms of the settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”].
Facts of the Case:
2. The petitioner Union, representing the canteen workers of the Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees’ Cooperative Canteen, had earlier approached this Court in W.P. No. 6872 of 2001, seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the members of the petitioner Association as regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust and to extend to them all attendant and monetary benefits from the date of their appointment, on par with the regular employees, by declaring them as direct employees of the Chennai Port Trust.
3. This Court, by order dated 24.08.2005, allowed the said writ petition and held that the regular and permanent employees of the canteen shall be treated as direct employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The Court further directed the absorption of temporary employees and the conferral of permanent status upon them. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 21.02.2006 in W.A. No. 66 of 2006. The matter was thereafter taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 2010, and by order dated 27.04.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of this Court, thereby rendering the said directions final and binding.
4. As the directions issued by this Court were not implemented in full measure, Contempt Petition No. 2163 of 2018 was filed. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondent complied with the directions to the extent of absorbing the services of the members of the petitioner Union and extending pensionary benefits to the retired employees. However, with respect to the claim for Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits, this Court reserved liberty to make a representation to the respondent seeking such extension. The petitioner Union thereafter submitted a representation. The respondent, however, failed to consider or accede to the said claim, thereby compelling the petitioner Union to once again invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
5. Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a settlement was entered into between the petitioner Union and the respondent under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Clause 12 of the said settlement expressly provides for the grant of three financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service, provided there was no regular promotion during the said periods and subject to the prevailing conditions of the ACP Scheme. The clause further stipulates that the modified ACP shall be operative from the date of the settlement.
6. The learned counsel contended that, pursuant to the judicial pronouncements referred to supra, t
