2007 (3) TMI 791 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of pay scale for Meter Readers
2. Discrimination in pay scale
3. Entitlement to pay scale benefits
4. Legality of Writ Petition for parity in pay scale
5. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act
6. Delay and laches in filing Writ Petition

Analysis:

1. Revision of pay scale for Meter Readers:
The case involved a dispute regarding the revision of pay scale for Meter Readers in a local authority under the New Delhi Municipal Act, 1994. Initially, 17 senior Shifts In charge opted to become Meter Readers, and their pay scale was protected by an Order dated 10.2.1982. This protection of pay was given on an ad-hoc basis and was meant to be personal to them.

2. Discrimination in pay scale:
Some other Meter Readers raised an industrial dispute, claiming discrimination in the pay scale revision. The Industrial Tribunal awarded that the other Meter Readers, who were not part of the initial 17, were entitled to the same pay scale benefits on a similar ad-hoc basis. The Tribunal found the management's differential treatment to be arbitrary and directed the payment of arrears to the affected employees.

3. Entitlement to pay scale benefits:
The respondents, who were appointed after the initial pay scale revision, filed a Writ Petition seeking parity in pay scale. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions, stating that the respondents, having passed the required test earlier, should not be denied the pay scale benefits granted to others.

4. Legality of Writ Petition for parity in pay scale:
The appellant argued that the respondents, appointed after the cut-off date of 6.2.1982, should not be granted the same pay scale benefits. The High Court's decision to award back wages to the respondents was challenged as an illegality due to the delay in filing the Writ Petitions.

5. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act:
The respondents contended that the Industrial Tribunal's Award was binding on the appellant under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Act does not mandate extending benefits to employees who were not part of the original dispute and did not raise grievances regarding their conditions of service.

6. Delay and laches in filing Writ Petition:
The Supreme Court noted that the respondents filed the Writ Petition after a significant delay of 17 years, failing to claim parity with the initial beneficiaries earlier. The Court emphasized that discretionary jurisdiction should not be exercised in favor of those who approach the court after an unreasonable delay, citing relevant case law on the issue.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that the delay in filing the Writ Petition and the lack of merit in the respondents' case did not warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in their favor.