Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a batch of writ petitions were filed which pertained to unionised workers of Respondent 1, Hotel Corporation of India (‘HCI’), seeking disbursement of the wage revision arrears and the consequential benefits thereof to the unionised (retired) workers of HCI in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) and the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Chandra Dhari Singh, J.*, opined that HCI had acted in contravention with Article 14 of the Constitution by creating such wrongful classification between the retired unionised workers and the unionised employees who were currently employed with HCI. Thus, the Court held that HCI shall pay the petitioners, their arrears of wage revision on a par with the currently employed unionized workmen.
Background
The petitioners had joined HCI under the category of unionised workmen between 1982 and 1991 and retired during 2010-2020. HCI, a public limited company was a subsidiary of Respondent 2, Air India Limited before till its disinvestment in January 2022 and was now owned by Air India Assets Holding Limited. The first revision to the salary of the employees of HCI was introduced in 1982 for a period of five years, i.e., till 1987. The Bureau of Public Enterprises issued a direction dated 13-07-1984, to all the Central Public Sector Enterprises (‘CPSEs’), to follow the Industrial Dearness Allowance pattern instead of the Central Scales of pay and Dearness Allowance pattern. During multiple wage negotiations, the Tribunal passed the award dated 29-11-2016, and held that the unionised workers of HCI were entitled to revision of wages w.e.f. 17-08-2008.
An MOU dated 08-08-2019, was entered into by the petitioners and HCI as per which the wages of the unionised worker were to be revised w.e.f. from 17-08-2008, for a period of 10 years in compliance with the Award of the Tribunal. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jammu, directed HCI and Respondent 2 to release the wage revision arrears to the petitioners of unionized category in four equal installments. The petitioners retired from the employment of HCI, but they did not receive their payments as per the revision in wage scale w.e.f., 17-08-2008, till their date of superannuation.
Thus, the petitioners filed the petition being aggrieved by HCI’s inaction of not paying the arrears due to the petitioners despite the award passed by the Tribunal in the favour of the petitioners. The petitioners further submitted that this conduct amounted to discrimination among the unionized workers who were currently working in HCI and the petitioners i.e., the ones who had retired since, the latter had not been paid their dues pertaining to the wage revision.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether HCI shall pay the revision of pay scales to the petitioners in terms of the MOU, executed in their favour, and in accordance with the order of the Tribunal, directing HCI to pay the petitioners in terms of the revised pay scale?”.
The Court opined that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners were entitled to the payment of their revised wages w.e.f. 17-08-2008. The Court after considering the provision provided under Section 17 and Section 17-A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947, opined that since the award had not been subject to the conditions as laid in the said provisions, the Award became enforceable after 30 days of its publication. The Court further opined that the petitioners, were entitled to the payment of the wage revision w.e.f. 17-08-2008, however, not in terms of the said MOU, since, it had been agreed between HCI and the petitioners, that the arrears of revision of wages shall be subject to the availability of the funds with HCI, and since HCI had been suffering losses for years, thereby, not possessing sufficient funds for the payment of arrears of wage revision. Hence, though the petitioners were entitled to the wage revision in terms of the Tribunal award, however, not in terms of the said MOU.
The Court also opined that “the employer, while giving benefits to its employees, could not discriminate between its retired employees and the ones which were currently working under the employer. It was subjected to the condition that unless there was a sound reasoning behind why the two classes were treated differently, the employer shall not discriminate between the two categories”.
The Court relied on All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur, (2020) 14 SCC 625, wherein the Supreme Court had discussed the issue of “wrongful classification among the employees working at the same position”. The Court opined that HCI had acted in contravention with Article 14 of the Constitution by creating such wrongful classification between the retired unionised workers and the unionised employees who were currently employed with HCI. Thus, the Court held that HCI shall pay the petitioners, their arrears of wage revision on a par with the currently employed unionized workmen.
The Court relied on Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 1 SCC 386 and opined that the petitioners had a legal/vested right in claiming the wage revision as per the Tribunal award dated 29-11-2016 and there was a legal duty of HCI in paying the petitioners the said arrears. The Court held that this was a fit case for issuing the writ of mandamus regarding the arrears of wage revision claimed in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal, wherein HCI was directed to pay the petitioners. Thus, the Court issued the writ of mandamus, thereby, directing HCI for payment of arrears of wage revision due to the petitioners in compliance with the award dated 29-11-2016 passed by the Tribunal.
[Rajenderi Singh Chhetri v. Hotel Corporation of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6316, decided on 06-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Deepak Biswas, Ruchika Rathi, Varsha Agarwal, Advocates
For the Respondents: A.P. Singh, Shreyansh Rathi, Sonam Gosain, Surbhi Sing, Anjana Gosain, Nippun Sharma, Hetika Vadhera, Advocates; K. Gopal Krishna, CFO
Buy Constitution of India HERE
