In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), upholding the decisions of the Industrial Court and the High Court. The case revolved around the revision of pay scales granted to daily wage workers employed by MSRTC and the interpretation of earlier settlements and resolutions that have been a point of contention for years. At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation of the landmark decision in Maharashtra SRTC v. Premlal (2007) 9 SCC 141, which was pivotal in shaping the rights of daily wage workers in the transport corporation.
Background of the Case:
The present batch of appeals stemmed from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which refused to interfere with an order passed by the Industrial Court. This order had granted relief to the respondents—daily wage workers—by striking down the revision of their pay scales in 2015, which was made by MSRTC, and restoring the pay fixation made earlier in 2010.
The controversy arose from a long-standing dispute about the pay scale for workers employed on a daily wage basis by MSRTC, particularly with regard to several settlements and resolutions that have evolved over time.
The key documents at the center of this case were the 1956 Settlement, the 1978 Resolution, and the 1985 Settlement. These agreements addressed the terms under which daily wage workers were entitled to time scales of pay and their eligibility for permanent employment.
The 2015 Pay Revision Controversy:
MSRTC argued that the revision of pay scales in 2015 was in line with the decision in Premlal, which laid down the criteria for determining the entitlement of daily wage workers to time scales of pay. According to MSRTC, the 1956 Settlement was cancelled by the 1978 Resolution, which introduced new conditions, including the requirement for daily wage workers to complete 180 days of service within a financial year to qualify for time scale pay. The MSRTC contended that their 2015 revision was in compliance with these conditions and aimed at bringing parity among workers.
However, the respondent workers—who had been employed as daily wagers—argued that the 2015 revision was unjustified and violated their rights. They pointed out that the pay scale fixation in 2010 had been based on a judgment from the Industrial Court, which was not challenged by MSRTC at the time. They further claimed that the revision in 2015 was carried out without any prior notice and did not take into account the earlier judicial decisions, including Premlal, which clarified the legal standing of daily wage workers.
The Role of Premlal:
The judgment in Premlal played a pivotal role in shaping the legal arguments in this case. The Supreme Court in Premlal held that Clause 49 of the 1956 Settlement, which provided time scales of pay to daily wage workers who completed 180 days of service, was distinct from the provisions of the 1978 Resolution, which applied different criteria for temporary appointment to ephemeral vacancies. The court further emphasized that the conditions for absorption into regular employment, as stipulated in the 1985 Settlement, did not affect the rights of workers who were entitled to time scale pay based on their 180 days of service.
The Court observed that the 1956 Settlement and the 1985 Settlement operated in separate fields, with the former granting time scale pay to eligible daily wage workers, while the latter addressed the issue of absorption into the regular cadre. Thus, the entitlement of workers to time scale pay was not dependent on their absorption into permanent positions, which MSRTC had tried to argue in justifying the 2015 pay revision.
The Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and legal arguments, concluded that the revision of pay scales in 2015 could not be sustained. The Court found that the 2010 pay fixation, which was based on the Industrial Court's order, had already considered the principles laid down in Premlal and could not be revisited without proper notice to the affected employees.
The Court also highlighted that the 2015 revision was done without taking into account the earlier judicial decisions, including the order of the Industrial Court in 2008, which had granted the pay scales based on the 1956 Settlement and its interpretation in Premlal. Since the 2010 fixation had been based on the existing legal framework, the revision in 2015 was not justified, and the appeals filed by MSRTC were dismissed.
Conclusion:
This case serves as a reminder of the complex legal landscape that governs employment relations and pay scales for daily wage workers, particularly in large public sector organizations like MSRTC. It also underscores the importance of adhering to judicial precedents and the need for clarity when revising pay scales and terms of employment for workers. The judgment reinforces the legal principle that any revision of rights granted to workers, especially those based on prior judicial orders, must be done with due process and in compliance with existing laws and settlements.
In this instance, the workers' rights to fair pay based on their service were upheld, and the 2015 revision of pay scales was struck down, emphasizing the need for transparency, fairness, and legal consistency in such matters.
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
