2025 INSC 279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. AND HON’BLE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.)
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT
Petitioner
VERSUS
SUBHASH S/O LAXMANRAO
BRAMHE
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No.______________ OF 2025 (@S.L.P (C) No.19499 Of 2024) WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19507
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 19506 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 19509 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19916 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 19510 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 15255 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 15479 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025(@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 15842 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 16100 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No.
16186 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 16613 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 16642 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 16659 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 24449 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No.
24487 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 24505 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 24535 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26630 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 24736 Of
2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 24752 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29719 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 24802 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19796 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 24961 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 24989 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20215
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 20213 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 29317 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19798 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29696 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 25538 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19797 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 25664 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20214 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025(@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19883 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29282 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 28645 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19868 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19867 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19961
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 29142 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 29185 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29731 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 29776 Of
2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 30015 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 30043 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 30121 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29115
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 30205 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20859 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19347
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 29709 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 31445 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 31448 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025(@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29117 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29720 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29710 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29711
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 31553 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 32174 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29116 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 32235 Of
2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 29310 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 32437 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 32534 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29694 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29695 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No.
36630 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 28898 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38413 Of
2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38434 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 38449 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38460 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38497 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No.
38567 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38575 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 38612 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38628 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26627
Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38693 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 38716 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38751 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38780 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No.
38819 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 38878 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 38909 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 39642 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 39664 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No.
40173 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 22554 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 40244 Of
2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 22553 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 40293 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL
NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 40315 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 40324 Of 2024) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 779
Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 778 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 1567 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 709 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________
OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 712 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 710 Of 2025) CIVIL
APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 723
Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 722 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 720 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 721 Of 2025) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 57239 Of
2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. ________ Of 2025) (@ Diary No. 57444 Of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
________________ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ________ Of
2025) (@ Diary No. 57811 Of 2024)- Decided on 27-02-2025
Labour Law
Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Labour
Law - Revision of salaries – Unfair labour practice – Challenge as to - 2010 fixationwhich is sought to be revised in
2015 was after Premlal1 and also in compliance of an order of the
Industrial Court in the year 2008; which order too was subsequent to Premlal,
granting pay scales as applicable to regular workers - The order of the
Industrial Court in the year 2008 has become final and the 2010 order of
fixation of pay scales in compliance with that order cannot be upset either by
reason of a labored interpretation of Premlal1 or on a subsequent
litigation, which resulted in Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7, which also followed
Premlal1 - Further, there cannot be any contention taken that the
eligibility under Clause 49 of the 1956 settlement would depend upon the
conditions in Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement - Both the Industrial Court and the
High Court and the decision in Premlal1 found that these operate on
two different fields; one is grant of time scales of pay and the other is
absorption, the latter of which is not claimed in Premlal1 nor has
been claimed by the respondent-workmen herein - The finding in paragraph 10 of
Premlal1 is to the effect that the workmen would be entitled to all
benefits admissible to regular employees working in the MSRTC, provided they
satisfy the eligibility criteria of having 180 days service - The further
observation; that it is subject to the conditions prescribed in the
1978-Resolution and the 1985-Settlement can only be treated as enabling
those employees who were granted regular time scales, while they were
continuing as daily wagers, to be entitled to absorption as per the Settlement
of 1985; later of which would be on being selected by a competent Selection
Committee and subject to availability of vacancies - Yet again, the 2015
revision of pay scales was without notice to the employees and does not, at
all, refer to the decision in the Premlal1 or the subsequent
decisions in Annexures P-5 to P-7, as a ground for effecting such revision - Find
absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge
which confirms the interference made by the Industrial Court to the pay scale
revision effected in the year 2015.
(Para
17 to 20)
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
:- Leave
granted.
2.
The above batch of appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The impugned judgment
refused to interfere with the order of the Industrial Court, which allowed the
Complaints filed by the respondents/workmen in the year 2015. By Annexure P-11
order dated 17.08.2018, the complaints before the Industrial Court; with
respect to the revision of salaries of the workmen by order dated 10.10.2015,
cancelling the fixation of wages granted earlier by order dated 15.03.2010;
which was alleged to be an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), were allowed and the revision set
aside.
3.
We have heard Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as “the MSRTC”) and Mr. P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents. Both the learned Counsel referred to Civil Appeal
No.______________ of 2025 @Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19507 of 2024;
from which we refer to the facts and the history of litigation, the orders in
which are also referred from the memorandum of the said case.
4.
Learned Counsel for the appellant- MSRTC would vehemently argue that the
revision of the year 2015 was only in consonance with the order of this Court
in Maharashtra SRTC v. Premlal[(2007)
9 SCC 141]. The essential controversy was with respect to a settlement in
the year 1956, which stood cancelled in the year 1978; both of which related to
grant of time scale of pay and other benefits available to regular workers. The
terms differed, insofar as the period in which 180 days continuous service as
daily wage employee had to be reckoned, was without any stipulation of period
as per the 1956-Settlement, while as per the 1978-Resolution it had to be
attained within a financial year. Later, there was a Settlement in the year
1985 which provided for absorption of daily wage working staff after completed
service of 180 days, subject to conditions of a selection by the competent
Selection Committee and only against available vacancies. These provisions were
the subject matter of interpretation in Premlal1 and it was categorically held
by this Court that they have to be read together. It is in that circumstance
that the present revision was necessitated in the year 2015, as argued by
MSRTC.
5.
It is also urged that, the very same conclusion was arrived at in a judgment of
a learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2012 produced as Annexure-P-5 which stood
approved by the Division Bench by Annexure-P-6 dated 21.08.2012 and the Special
Leave Petition filed, stood rejected as per Annexure-P-7 dated 02.05.2000.
Annexure- P-7 categorically found that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
was in consonance with Premlal1. The exercise of 2015 was necessitated, since
otherwise it would have created discrimination insofar as the time scale of pay
granted to the daily wage workers. The dictum in Premlal1 was also
followed by a learned Single Judge in Annexure P-10 judgment dated 23.06.2016
with respect to the grant of pay scale to daily wage workers on attaining the
eligibility criteria of having worked for 180 days subject to their satisfying
all the conditions in the 1978- Resolution and the 1985-Settlement. The
judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of the Industrial Court have to
be set aside to bring parity with respect to similarly placed workers. On the
apprehension expressed by the respondents that recovery would be affected, the
learned Counsel for MSRTC asserts that the appellant does not intend to proceed
for recovery but the revisions have to be upheld and this would apply to the
workers who are still continuing. It is pointed out that even the persons
appointed in the year 1992, who were respondents herein, would be regulated by
the 1985 settlement.
6.
Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-workmen submits that there are only
few workers continuing in service who are affected by the revision and all
others are retired long back. It is pointed out that a re-fixation at this
stage would seriously prejudice the retired workmen and also the serving
employees who were granted fixation in the year 2010. It is argued that the
entire exercise has been carried out misconstruing the dictum in Premlal1.
Premlal1, in fact, held that the 1956-Settlement, with respect to grant of time
scales of pay applicable to regular workers to daily wagers, was distinct and
different from the regularization as brought out in the 1985- Settlement. None
of the respondents who were complainants before the Industrial Court sought for
regularization. They only challenged the revision of pay scales granted in the
year 2015, interfering with the earlier fixation of the year 2010; which
revision in 2015 was without notice and without reference to Premlal1.
Emphasising that no absorption is sought, it is pointed out that Industrial
Court in the complaints filed in the year 1992 and 1995 granted identical
relief of time scale of pay to similarly situated daily wage employees, all of
which have become final. This was the view confirmed in Premlal1; upholding the
Full Bench decision of the High Court of Bombay, while dismissing the
appeals of the Corporation (MSRTC).
7.
We have to first deal with the different clauses which came up for
consideration in Premlal1. Clause 49 of the Settlement of the year 1956 enabled
all employees who worked for 180 days continuously, including weekly off and
other holidays, to be brought under the time scale of pay, eligible also to
other benefits available to time scale workers. The Resolution of 1978
cancelled Clause 49 and provided for the daily wage workers, who have completed
180 days in any one financial year, commencing from 1 st April, 1973 to be
appointed temporarily in ephemeral vacancies with the time scale of pay
applicable to the posts they were appointed in, and were also entitled to other
benefits detailed thereunder, as admissible to regular employees with time
scale of pay. Hence, when Clause 49 of 1956-Settlement provided for time scale
of pay to persons who completed 180 days of service as daily wage workers, the
1978-Resolution enabled only persons who have completed 180 days within a
financial year to be appointed temporarily to an ephemeral vacancy. The
essential difference was insofar as Clause 49 providing for mere completion of
180 days while the 1978- Resolution mandated completion of 180 days within a
financial year, with the entitlement of temporary appointment in an ephemeral
vacancy. The appointment to ephemeral vacancies entiled time scale of pay and
other specified benefits available to regular workmen.
8.
The 1985-Resolution provided for absorption of daily wage workers after
completed service of 180 days subject to their selection by the competent
Selection Committee and existence of vacancies in the specific posts. According
to us, even when the 1985-Settlement came into force, the 1978-Resolution
continued to apply, as held in Premlal1. The grant of regular time scale of pay
and the appointment to ephemeral vacancies, being distinct from absorption. The
1985-Settlement provided for absorption into the regular cadre; which even the
beneficiaries who were granted time scale or appointed to ephemeral vacancies
would be eligible, subject only to satisfying the specific conditions of
eligibility; which is a proper selection and only to available vacancies.
9.
Premlal1 specifically was concerned with employees who were appointed after
31.08.1978. They were aggrieved with the resolution of 1978 which cancelled
Clause 49 of the 1956-Settlement. This Court in Premlal1, categorically held
that by the 1978-Resolution, Clause 49 of the 1956- Settlement stood cancelled
and that the workers Union had agreed to the said cancellation ( sic- para 10).
It was found that the demand of the Union for substitution of Clause 49 was
agreed to by the MSRTC by which daily wagers who completed 180 days in a
financial year were entitled to temporary appointment in an ephemeral vacancy
with a time scale of pay. Therein also, the entitlement was not for absorption
but for the benefits admissible to regular employees of time scale of pay by
appointment to ephemeral vacancies.
10.
On a reading of the various provisions, it was categorically held in Premlal1
as follows:
“10. xxx xxx xxx. In the circumstances, notwithstanding
cancellation of clause 49 of the 1956 Settlement the workmen herein would be
entitled to all benefits admissible to regular employees working in the
Corporation on timescale of pay provided they satisfy the eligibility criteria
of having worked for aggregate service of 180 days and subject to their
satisfying all the conditions prescribed for their entitlement in terms of the
above Resolution No.8856 read with clause 19 of the 1985 Settlement.”
11.
The argument of the learned Counsel for the MSRTC that the eligibility has now
to be determined based on the 1985-Settlement, arises from the above extract.
In paragraph 9 of the decision their Lordships observed that the condition for
selection by a competent Selection Committee; which is also subject to
availability of vacancies, is only in relation to the absorption as per the
1985-Settlement, which does not regulate the benefit of grant of wages payable
to time scale workers as per the 1956-Settlement. The finding of the Full Bench
of the High Court that the two clauses operated in different fields was upheld
and it was categorically held that Clause 19 of the 1985-Settlement and
Clause 49 of the 1956- Settlement operate in different fields and therefore,
there is no question of Clause 19 of 1985 superseding clause 49 of the 1956-
Settlement (sic).
12.
Suffice it to reiterate the principle in Quinn vs. Leathem[[1901] AC 495] “…a case is only an authority for what it actually
decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem
to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is
necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that law is
not always logical al all” (sic) off quoted with approval by this Court. The
dictum of a judgment, it is trite has to be understood from the specific facts
and the larger interpretation coming out and cannot be based on isolated
sentences or observations.
13.
In this context, we have to look at the various litigations referred to by the
learned counsel for the MSRTC, specifically Annexure P-5 which was upheld by
this Court. Annexure P-5 dated 06.03.2012 referred to the extract we made from
paragraph 10 of Premlal1 and directed that the order of the Industrial Court
will be modified to that extent. This was approved by a Division Bench as per
Annexure P-6 dated 21.08.2012 and also upheld in Annexure P-7 dated 02.05.2014;
on the reasoning that the impugned judgments were in consonance with Premlal1.
The order for revision obtained in the year 2015 which was impugned before the
Industrial Court is said to be in compliance with the decision at Annexure P-5,
as upheld by this Court. We have not been apprised of the essential controversy
raised therein but there can be no quarrel to the proposition that Premlal1
governs the field.
14.
When the MSRTC asserts that they were only attempting to implement the decision
in Premlal1, they keep silent about the pay fixation in 2010 which was revised
in 2015. While Premlal1 was pending before this Court; as we discern from
Annexure P-8; the Complaint which led to the present order of the Industrial
Court, there was another Complaint of 2006 pending before the Industrial Court
in which the claim raised by the workmen was upheld by order dated 13.10.2008.
It is also asserted by the workmen that the pay fixation of 05.03.2010 was
based on the said order of the Industrial Court; which has not been challenged
by the MSRTC. Having not challenged the said order, the revision of pay in 2015
by virtue of a subsequent order passed by this Court, reaffirming the dictum in
Premlal1, cannot be countenanced. Premlal1 was decided by this Court on
27.02.2007. Immediately thereafter, by Annexure P-4 dated 06.02.2009 directions
were issued to implement the same. It was subsequent to and by virtue of the
dictum in Premlal1 that the 2010 fixation was granted, as we perceive it from
the facts disclosed.
15.
We reiterate, at the risk of repetition, that when the order of the Industrial
Court came on 30.10.2008 and the pay scales were granted in the year 2010, the
decision in Premlal1 was already in existence and before the fixation of 2010,
MSRTC had taken steps to implement Premlal1 in 2009. The confusion has been
created only by reason of the conditions of absorption being applied to the
earlier provisions of 1959 and 1978, which Premlal1 itself clarified,
operates in different fields.
16.
We also notice Annexure P-9 reply of MSRTC, submitted to Annexure P-8, which
admits that the order in Complaint (ULP) No.422 of 2006 decided on 03.10.2008
was not challenged. The contention is that the subsequent Writ Petitions filed
by the MSRTC was in consonance with the 1985-Settlement and the revision of
2015 was necessitated due to the order in Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation v. Sh. Arjun Gangaram Wajgikar and Ors. [Writ Petition no. 3466/2011 decided on 06.03.2012] which is
Annexure P-5. Annexure P-5 only reiterated Premlal.
17.
We are unable to accept the contention raised by the MSRTC in the appeals, for
multiple reasons. First and foremost, the 2010 fixation which is sought to be
revised in 2015 was after Premlal1 and also in compliance of an order of the
Industrial Court in the year 2008; which order too was subsequent to Premlal,
granting pay scales as applicable to regular workers. The order of the Industrial
Court in the year 2008 has become final and the 2010 order of fixation of pay
scales in
compliance
with that order cannot be upset either by reason of a labored interpretation of
Premlal1 or on a subsequent litigation, which resulted in Annexures P-5, P-6
and P-7, which also followed Premlal1.
18.
Further, there cannot be any contention taken that the eligibility under Clause
49 of the 1956 settlement would depend upon the conditions in Clause 19 of 1985
Settlement. Both the Industrial Court and the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay (Annexure P-2) and the decision in Premlal1 found that these operate on
two different fields; one is grant of time scales of pay and the other is
absorption, the latter of which is not claimed in Premlal1 nor has been claimed
by the respondent-workmen herein. The finding in paragraph 10 of Premlal1 is to
the effect that the workmen would be entitled to all benefits admissible to
regular employees working in the MSRTC, provided they satisfy the eligibility
criteria of having 180 days service. The further observation; that it is
subject to the conditions prescribed in the 1978-Resolution and the
1985-Settlement can only be treated as enabling those employees who were
granted regular time scales, while they were continuing as daily wagers, to be
entitled to absorption as per the Settlement of 1985; later of which would be
on being selected by a competent Selection Committee and subject to
availability of vacancies. We hasten to add that our observation would not
entitle any claim for regularization at this stage, since categorically the
respondents have not pressed such a claim.
19.
Yet again, the 2015 revision of pay scales was without notice to the employees
and does not, at all, refer to the decision in the Premlal1 or the subsequent
decisions in Annexures P-5 to P-7, as a ground for effecting such revision.
20.
For all the above reasons, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge which confirms the interference made by the
Industrial Court to the pay scale revision effected in the year 2015.
21.
Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed, as above.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
------