Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 791 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of higher pay scale - Granted to other meter readers - Post of Meter Readers filled up by direct recruitment by 17 senior most Shift In charge - Award of the Industrial Tribunal - Petition filled after 17 years - HELD THAT:- 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. 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. 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. Section 18(3)(b) although, provides that all workmen who were employed in an establishment, subsequently become employed therein would also be bound by the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. But, they must be entitled to the similar benefits. Respondents were not parties to the said dispute. They did not raise any grievance in regard to their conditions of service. 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. 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. Thus, impugned Judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed.
|