Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 254

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT - APPELLANT
Versus
THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALEMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3209-3210 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.7105-7106 of 2014)
Decided on: 27-03-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners: Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. S.C. Patel, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Engaging workmen for long periods on daily wages on work of permanent nature and not making them permanent in spite of availability of sanctioned posts is unfair labour practice.

Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(ra) and Entry No.10, Fifth Schedule r/w section 25(T) and (U) – Workmen doing work of permanent nature – Working for similar number of hours as the permanent employees – However, discrepancy in wages/salary between permanent employees and non-permanent workmen alarming – Amounts to unfair labour practice – Prohibited u/s 25(T) and punishable u/s 25(U) (Para 10)
       (b) Labour law – Regularisation of workmen – Financial position of Appellant not unsound – sanctioned permanent posts available – Appellant violating principle of equal work for equal pay – Labour court award legal and supported with cogent and valid reasons. (Para 11, 12, 13)
       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Distinguished
       (c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 30 – Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer – Industrial and Labour Courts will have jurisdiction to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer – High Court under Article 226 and 227 rightly holding so. (Para 14, 15)
       (2009) 8 SCC 556 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The workmen of the Panchayat, some of whom are now deceased and are being represented by their legal heirs, were appointed to the post of safai kamdars of the appellant-Panchayat and have served for many years, varying from 18 years, 16 years, 8 years, 5 years etc. They were however, considered as daily wage workers and were therefore, not being paid benefits such as pay and allowances etc. as are being paid to the permanent safai kamdars of the appellant- Panchayat.
       On 23.07.1987, the workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer stating therein that after rendering services for a number of years, the workmen are entitled to the benefit of permanency under the appellant-Panchayat.
       The Labour Court held that the workmen are to be made permanent employees as safai kamdars in the appellant-Panchayat. The Labour Court has further directed the appellant-Panchayat that the workmen should be paid wages, allowances and other monetary benefits as well for which they are legally entitled to.
       The High Court dismissed the appeal.
       LPA was also dismissed as not maintainable.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appellants directed to treat the services of the concerned workmen as permanent employees, after five years of their initial appointment as daily wage workmen till they attain the age of superannuation for the purpose of granting terminal benefits to them.
       Appellant further directed to pay the regular pay-scale as per the revised pay scale fixed to the post of permanent safai kamdars for a total period of 15 years to the concerned workmen and the legal representatives of the deceased workmen. The same shall be implemented within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and compliance report of the same shall be submitted for the perusal of the Supreme Court.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

Judgment

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 551 of 2013 in Misc. Civil Application No.3071 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 1994, by the High Court of Judicature of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the same as being not maintainable and has upheld the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of the High Court dated 13.07.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 1994, which is also impugned herein, wherein the application filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by confirming the Award dated 15.05.1991 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 1988.

3. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court as well as the Award of the Labour Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:

The appellant-Gram Panchayat was duly established under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act’). The workmen of the Panchayat, some of whom are now deceased and are being represented by their legal heirs, were appointed to the post of safai kamdars of the appellant-Panchayat and have served for many years, varying from 18 years, 16 years, 8 years, 5 years etc. They were however, considered as daily wage workers and were therefore, not being paid benefits such as pay and allowances etc. as are being paid to the permanent safai kamdars of the appellant- Panchayat.

4. On 23.07.1987, the workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Bhavnagar, through the respondent no.1, Municipal Employees Union (for short “Union”) stating therein that after rendering services for a number of years, the workmen are entitled to the benefit of permanency under the appellant-Panchayat. The settlement between the workmen and the appellant-Panchayat failed to resolve amicably during the conciliation proceedings and therefore, the failure report was sent to the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, who referred the same to the Labour Court vide Reference (LCD) No.6/88. The Labour Court by its Award held that the workmen are to be made permanent employees as safai kamdars in the appellant-Panchayat. The Labour Court has further directed the appellant-Panchayat that the workmen should be paid wages, allowances and other monetary benefits as well for which they are legally entitled to.

5. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the appellant-Panchayat filed an appeal before the single Judge of the High Court, whereby the same was dismissed and it was held that the view taken by the Labour Court is just and proper as it has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the services of the concerned workmen should be made permanent as the other employees of the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, filed an LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was also dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, these appeals have been filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court.

6. It has been contended by Mr. Mahendra Anand, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant that the workmen were not appointed on a permanent basis as the rules and regulations as prescribed under the provisions of the Act have not been followed. He has further contended that the High Court has erred in upholding the Award passed by the Labour Court as the same is illegal and there is non application of mind by the courts below. The Labour Court has wrongly held that there are 13 permanent posts available for the category in which the concerned employees are working as the other three employe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 254

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT - APPELLANTVersusTHE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALEMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. - RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL Nos.3209-3210 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.7105-7106 of 2014)Decided on: 27-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINTEngaging workmen for long periods on daily wages on work of permanent nature and not making them permanent in spite of availability of sanctioned posts is unfair labour practice.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT - APPELLANT
Versus
THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALEMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3209-3210 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.7105-7106 of 2014)
Decided on: 27-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Engaging workmen for long periods on daily wages on work of permanent nature and not making them permanent in spite of availability of sanctioned posts is unfair labour practice.