2001 JTR(SC) 205
2001 2 CLR 925 ; 2001 90 FLR 527 ; 2001 5 JT 271 ; 2001 2 LLJ 487 ; 2001 3 LLN 818 ; 2004 10 SCC 449 ; 2004 SCC(L&S) 772 ; 2002 1 SCT 73 ; 2002 2 SLR 203 ; 2001 5 SLT 97 ; 2004 KHC 1757
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G.Balakrishnan : S.R.Babu
Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India
Versus
General Secretary, Reserve Bank Workers Organisation
Case No. : 1039 of 2001
Date of Decision : 2/5/01
To maintain uniformity in employment standards, it is inappropriate to adopt different standards for the regularization of similar classes of employees within the same sector; they must be treated consistently in accordance with established settlements and judicial precedents.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.226
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.10
(A) Labour Law - Regularization of daily rated employees - Consistency in standards - Application of judicial precedents to similar classes of workmen - It would not be appropriate to adopt different standards in different sectors or for similar classes of employees within the same organization - Once a standard for regularization has been established based on a settlement and judicial decision, the same should be applied uniformly to avoid disparity. (Para 4 and 6)
Facts of the case:
A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal regarding the justification of the management's decision not to regularize daily rated employees. The Tribunal directed the management to prepare a reasonable scheme for regularization. Upon challenge, the High Court directed the regularization of employees who had been working since certain dates in the 1980s, with effect from 1990 and 1993, including consequential monetary benefits. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which had previously decided a similar matter involving daily rated employees from the same organization.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court's distinction regarding the binding nature of a previous settlement was unsustainable. It held that the same standard established in previous litigation—which regularized similar workmen as per a specific settlement from a fixed date—must be applied to the present case to maintain consistency.
Issues: Whether the management was justified in not regularizing daily rated employees and whether a uniform standard of regularization, as established in prior judicial decisions involving similar employees, should be adopted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it is not appropriate to adopt different standards for the regularization of workmen in identical positions within the same sector. Therefore, the employees must be regularized in accordance with the terms and dates established in the preceding judicial decision concerning a similar class of employees.
Result: Order made by the High Court set aside and regularization to be made as per the directions in the precedent case.
Facts of the case:
A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal regarding the justification of the management's decision not to regularize daily rated employees. The Tribunal directed the management to prepare a reasonable scheme for regularization. Upon challenge, the High Court directed the regularization of employees who had been working since certain dates in the 1980s, with effect from 1990 and 1993, including consequential monetary benefits. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which had previously decided a similar matter involving daily rated employees from the same organization.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court's distinction regarding the binding nature of a previous settlement was unsustainable. It held that the same standard established in previous litigation—which regularized similar workmen as per a specific settlement from a fixed date—must be applied to the present case to maintain consistency.
Issues: Whether the management was justified in not regularizing daily rated employees and whether a uniform standard of regularization, as established in prior judicial decisions involving similar employees, should be adopted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it is not appropriate to adopt different standards for the regularization of workmen in identical positions within the same sector. Therefore, the employees must be regularized in accordance with the terms and dates established in the preceding judicial decision concerning a similar class of employees.
Result: Order made by the High Court set aside and regularization to be made as per the directions in the precedent case.
Regularisation - The Court followed the precedent of this case to ensure a uniform standard for regularising daily rated employees of the Reserve Bank of India.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) A matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal on the following question:
"Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, is justified in not regularising the undermentioned ticca mazdoors/daily rated employees of Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore? If not, to what retef the workers are entitled to?"
(3) THE Tribunal answered the said question by holding that it will be proper for the appellant-Bank to prepare a separate reasonable scheme for regularisation of the workmen (except for one Gautham) with some certain time-bound directions. When this Award was challenged in a writ petition in the High Court the matter was considered by Division Bench of the High Court holding that substantial justice would be done to both the parties by directing the Bank to regularise the services of the workmen who have been working from 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986 with effect from 1990 insofar as 4 ticca mazdoors who are working from 1988 to be regularised with effect from 1993 with all the consequential monetary benefits including the arrears of salary and so on. This order is in challenge before us in this appeal by special leave.
(4) THIS Court in somewhat identical matter, though not arising out of a reference made to the Industrial Tribunal considered the very question referred to the Tribunal with reference to certain mazdoors who had been appointed on daily wages since 1984. After examining various aspects of the matter including the effect of the settlement dated July 23, 1993 held that it would not be appropriate to adopt different standards in different sectors in the country and the workmen of the appellant will have to be treated as having been regularised with effect from May 31, 1994 from which date they have been regularised as per the Settlement dated July 23, 1993 and disposed of the case accordingly.
(5) THE High Court adverted to this decision, however, after referring to certain portions of the judgment observed as follows:
"The said direction was issued in the Appeals of the Bank by the Apex Court with reference to the facts of that case placing reliance upon the settlement, which was entered into between the parties during the pendency of the dispute. Whereas in this case, the first respondent Tribunal has adjudicated the existing dispute between the parties with reference to the claim regarding the absorption of the concerned workmen and regularising their services. On the basis of the material evidence on record and the law laid down by the Apex Court the Tribunal has also considered the settlement upon which much reliance is placed though the said settlement was not binding upon the concerned workmen for the reasons stated supra, and further the Tribunal has also considered the directions issued by the Assistant."
(6) THE question whether that settlement is binding upon the parties or not was also raised in the matter before this Court and that was considered and it is thereafter this Court gave the directions as aforesaid. In that view of the matter we do not think that it would be appropriate to adopt a different standard in this appeal. Therefore, following the said decision in C.A. No. 7407/1994 - M.G. Datania & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. and connected matters disposed of on 28.11.1995 we set aside the order made by the High Court and direct that regularisation of the members whose case is espoused by Reserve Bank Workers Organisation shall be appropriately made as directed by this Court in C.A. No. 7407/1994 and connected matters.