2007 Supreme(SC) 315

2007(3) Supreme 743
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
New Delhi Municipal Council — Appellant
versus
Pan Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1214 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21024 of 2005)
Decided on 8-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Surya Kant, Ms. Shailija Sinha, Ms. Jahanvi Worah, Neeraj Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Asha Madan, Mukesh Jain, Ambar Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Before benefit of an award is sought for workmen who were not party to the award in terms of Section 18(3)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, such workmen must be entitled to similar benefits.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 18(3)(b) — Posts of Meter Readers and Shifts Incharge in appellant department of electricity — 17 Shifts Incharge opted to become Meter Readers and asked for pay protection as they were working in higher pay scale — By order of Administrator of appellant their pay was protected and they joined as Meter Reader — Some Meter Readers raised industrial dispute and reference was made — Respondents were not party therein — Industrial Tribunal passed award in favour of workmen — Respondents filed writ petition claiming parity in grant of scale of pay with the Awardees — High Court allowed writ — Appeal — Entitlement of an employee to be placed on a particular pay scale would depend upon terms and conditions laid down in contract of service — Direction in terms of Award was confined only to those who were in employment at the time when said benefit was given to said 17 Meter Readers — They formed a class by themselves — Writ petitions were filed after 17 years — Discretionary jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of those who approached Court after a long time — High Court should not have exercised discretionary jurisdiction — Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

       Held : Respondents were appointed on different dates, admittedly after 6.2.1982. Entitlement of an employee to be placed on a particular scale of pay would depend upon the terms and conditions laid down in the contract of service. (Para 9)

       Seventeen persons who were granted higher scale of pay as noticed hereinbefore had been working as Shifts in charge. As Shifts In charge, they were entitled to a higher scale of pay. They were given a higher scale so as to protect their pay which were personal to them and that too on an ad-hoc measure. It was not by way of a revision of scale of pay as understood in the ordinary sense of the term. (Para 10)

       Those Meter Readers who were purported to be similarly situated meaning thereby those who were in service as on 12.2.1982 i.e the date when the purported pay scales of 17 senior most Meter Readers on ad-hoc basis were revised, raised an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal in its Award proceeded on the basis that the concerned workmen were entitled to the benefit of higher scale as they were similarly situated to those 17 senior most Meter Readers. (Para 11)

       The direction in terms of the Award was confined only to those who were in employment at the time when the said benefit was given to the said 17 Meter Readers. (Para 12)

       They, thus, formed a class by themselves. A cut-off date having been fixed by the Tribunal, those who were thus not similarly situated, were to be treated to have formed a different class. They could not be treated alike with the others. The High Court, unfortunately, has not considered this aspect of the matter. (Para 13)

       There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (Para 16)

       We, therefore, are of the opinion that it was not a fit case where the High Court should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the respondents herein. For the reasons aforementioned, impugned Judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. (Paras 20 and 21)