Case Name: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Subhash S/O Laxmanrao Brahme
Case Number: S.L.P. (C) of 19499 of 2024
Date: 27 February, 2025
Quorum: Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Facts
The conflict arises from 2015 complaints lodged by workmen against the prevailing wage fixation order of 2010. The Industrial Court, by an order of 17 August 2018, had rescinded the 2010 wage fixation and sanctioned the revision in 2015. This revision was grounded in a series of historical settlements and resolutions: the 1956 Settlement (which granted time-scale pay upon 180 days of service), the 1978 Resolution (which replaced the 1956 clause and provided for temporary appointments based on service within a financial year), and the 1985 Settlement (which dealt with absorption into the regular cadre under certain conditions).
MSRTC claimed that the 2015 amendment was required to prevent discrimination between the daily wage workers and to synchronize their benefits with those of the regular staff.
The respondents (labourers) alleged that the amendment was made without adequate notice, caused a break in the established wage fixation of 2010, and unfairly prejudiced the retired labourers and present employees.
Issues
- Was the 2015 wage revision in accordance with the legal framework established by the 1956, 1978, and 1985 instruments as interpreted by the precedent case Premlal?
- Was the revision effected with adequate notice and transparency?
- Does the revision disproportionately hit employees whose wages were frozen or stabilized in 2010 or already retired persons?
Legal Provisions
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Governs disputes related to unfair labour practices and wage fixations.
- Historical Settlements and Resolutions: 1956 Settlement (Clause 49): Provided for time-scale pay for daily wage workers after 180 days of service.
- 1978 Resolution: Cancelled Clause 49, requiring completion of 180 days within a financial year for temporary appointments.
- 1985 Settlement: Introduced provisions for absorption into the regular cadre, subject to selection and vacancy.
Arguments by the Appellant
MSRTC argued that the 2015 revision was necessary to implement the principles of Premlal. The appellant maintained that daily wage workers should receive benefits akin to regular employees, and the revision did not affect the 2010 order, which was unchallenged by MSRTC.
MSRTC asserted that the revision was limited to workers still in service, and even those appointed in 1992 would continue to be governed by the provisions of the 1985 Settlement. Citing earlier judgments and orders (including those detailed in Annexures P-5, P-6, and P-7), MSRTC claimed that the 2015 revision was fully in line with the legal framework and previous decisions.
Arguments by the Respondents
The workmen claimed that the 2015 revision was done without notice, upsetting the settled pay fixation of 2010. They alleged that the revision misinterpreted the principles of Premlal, confusing the temporary appointments under the 1978 Resolution with the absorption provisions of the 1985 Settlement.
The respondents asserted that the revision would unfairly target retired workmen and present employees who had been stabilized at 2010 levels, stating that the process did not protect their interests.
Analysis
The Court carefully reviewed the historical context and the legal instruments governing wage benefits. It noted that:
The 1956, 1978, and 1985 arrangements operate in distinct domains one governs the entitlement to time-scale pay for daily wage workers and the other deals with absorption into the regular cadre. Premlal case had already established the distinctions between these provisions, and the 2015 amendment was an attempt to extend fair benefits to workers who were still on the job.
The Court noted that the 2010 wage fixation was never questioned by MSRTC, and the revision that followed was meant only for those who were still in service, not to regularize the benefits of already retired personnel.. Although the respondents raised concerns about lack of notice and procedural fairness, the Court found that no substantial evidence was provided to demonstrate that these issues warranted overturning the Industrial Court’s decision. The revised pay structure, the Court held, was implemented in compliance with existing legal principles and prior judicial decisions.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that thee 2015 revision of pay scales is valid and in conformity with the legal framework laid down by the 1956 Settlement, the 1978 Resolution, and the 1985 Settlement, as clarified in Premlal case. The revision, aimed at eliminating disparities among daily wage workers, does not disrupt the 2010 fixation, which was unchallenged by MSRTC.
Consequently, the appeals by the workmen are dismissed, and the Industrial Court’s order permitting the 2015 revision is upheld.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court requires interpretation of wage agreements throughout history as a collective package. It maintained that MSRTC’s 2015 revision was a force measure for maintaining equity amongst daily wage earners, without pre-judging the wages of those for whose wages payment was made in 2010.The ruling reiterates procedural integrity, observing that while notice is important, its absence did not render the revision void, considering its conformity with settled legal principles. The ruling upholds the Industrial Court’s ruling and sheds light on the separate roles of different wage benefit instruments, hence encouraging equality and safeguarding the interests of like workers.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by OUM NARANG
