TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 approa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this revision of scale will be personal to them without making any precedent 3. Some other Meter Readers who were in services of the appellant at the relevant time raised an industrial dispute purported to be on the premise that they had been discriminated against. Reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 3, Delhi for determination of inter-alia the following industrial dispute: 1. Whether the pay scale of Meter Readers should be revised from ₹ 520-815 to ₹ 590-1000/- as has been done in case of 17 Meter Readers namely 1) Shri Turen Singh, 2) Ram Chander Singh, 3) Shri Rameshwar Lal Bali, 4. Shri Prem Chand Sharma, 5. Raj Kumar Kalia (6) Sh. Prabhu Dayal, (7) Sh. Anand Kishore Aggarwal (8) Shri Jagannath Parshad (9) Sh. D.P. Malhotra (10) Sh. Bhu Dev Sharma (11) Sh. Sukh Dev Singh (12) Shri Ajaib Singh (13) Shri H.C. Chauhan (14) Shri K.S. Rawat (15) Shri Devi Sanai, (16) Shri Mansa Ram, (17) Shri Subhash Chand Sharma and if so what directions are necessary in this respect? 4. Respondents were not parties therein. They did not file any application for their impleadment. By reason of an Award dated 7.1.1998, the Industrial Court dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal as on 6.2.1982, the respondents, having joined the services of the appellant thereafter, could not have been directed to be treated alike in the matter of grant of the same scale of pay. In any event, the Writ Petitions having been filed in July, 1999, the High Court committed a serious illegality in directing back wages in their favour. 8. Ms. Asha Jain Madan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was binding upon the appellant in terms of Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in that view of the matter, as respondents perform same or similar nature of duties as are performed by the other workmen, they were entitled to be treated alike. The learned Counsel would contend that the respondent did not raise a separate industrial dispute as they had all along been under the impression that they would be covered by the Award which may be made in the said Reference. 9. Respondents were appointed on different dates, admittedly after 6.2.1982. Entitlement of an employee to be placed on a particular scale of pay would depend upon the terms and conditions laid down in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they were not bound by the Award, which contention was rejected having regard to the fact that they were similarly situated and in fact were parties in the industrial disputes and were represented through their Union. 12. 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. See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Ors. (2004)ILLJ421SC , Chairman, U.P. Jal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
