DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION (REGD.) vs. DTC

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).5005  OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8039 of 2016) DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION (REGD.) ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DTC AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant sought a Reference on 24.10.1979, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with regard to revision of pay­scale of Security Staff up to the rank of Assistant Security Inspector, in the Delhi Transport   Corporation   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the Corporation’).   The   Industrial   Tribunal,   by   Award   dated 22.08.1985   held   that   Assistant   Security   Officer,   Security Havaldar   and   Security   Guard   in   the   services   of   the Corporation were entitled to the pay­scale of Rs.425­700/­, 1 Rs.260­350/­ and Rs.225­308/­respectively, with effect from 01.10.1979, at par with their counterparts in the Delhi Police Force. The Corporation challenged the Award unsuccessfully before the Single Judge.   The Division Bench set aside the Award, and which is presently assailed. 3. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal granted parity in pay­scale with the Delhi police based on consideration of material evidence inter alia  with regard to similarity in nature of duties, existing parity for the post of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer   with   that   in   the   Delhi   Police,   the   next   below   post principle in the Corporation itself, and the pay­scale available to similarly situated security staff in the Food Corporation of India, the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, etc.  In absence of any infirmity in the decision­making process by the Tribunal, the Division Bench erred in exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Award.  The principles and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with 2 regard to matters concerning pay­scale, including equal pay for   equal   work,   are   fundamentally   different   from   the adjudication of the same by an Industrial Tribunal under the Act.     The   primary   purpose   of   industrial   adjudication   is   to ensure social justice, secure peace and harmony between the employer and workmen and to ensure full cooperation between them.   The Tribunal for the purpose can confer rights and privileges   which   it   considers   reasonable   and   proper   and essential for keeping industrial peace. 4. It is pointed out that parity in pay­scale of the security cadre in the Corporation with that in the Delhi Police existed till 1962.   Thereafter, though parity existed with the Delhi Police for the rank of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer in the Corporation, the same was denied for the post of Assistant   Security   Officer,   Security   Havaldar   and   Security Guard   in   the   Corporation.     The   discrimination,   for   no justifiable reason was completely arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional ethos for a living wage and parity in pay­scales 3 based on wholesome identity, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, it is argued.  There was a great amount of similarity in the nature of duties of the three posts with that of the equivalent ranks in the Delhi Police.  Paucity of funds can never be justification to deny parity in pay­scale, it is further contended. 5. Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the Corporation, submitted that the pay­scales for posts in the Security Cadre rd were   based   on   the   3   Pay   Commission   recommendations dated   01.01.1973.   The   pay­scales   have   been   revised th periodically in accordance with recommendations of 4   Pay th Commission   dated   01.01.1986,   5   Pay   Commission   dated th 01.01.1996,   6   Pay   Commission   dated   01.01.2006   and th ultimately   the   7   Pay   Commission   recommendations   have been made applicable to the employees of the Corporation, including the posts in the security cadre.   The Corporation was   funded   by   the   Government   of   the   National   Capital Territory of Delhi, which did not approve implementation of the award  inter alia  because of the financial implications. 4 6. We   have   considered   the   submissions.     The   Security Cadre of the Corporation comprises of the Deputy Security Officer, Security Officer, Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar   and   Security   Guard.     Parity   of   pay­scales   in   the security cadre of the Corporation, with that of the Delhi Police, st nd did   exist   till   1962.     Pursuant   to   the   1   and   2   Pay Commission recommendations, parity in pay­scales of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer was maintained with that in the Delhi Police, but not for the rank of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard.       Aggrieved, the   Appellant­Union   sought   Reference   under   the   Act.    The Corporation contended in its written statement that pay­scales of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security rd Guard were fixed in accordance with the 3  Pay Commission recommendation   dated   01.01.1973.   A   pay   commission   had been constituted to prepare a wage structure for all employees of the Corporation, and which was to submit its report shortly. The   Tribunal   opined   that   it   was   an   arduous   and   time consuming task.   On that basis, the Tribunal proceeded to 5 assume jurisdiction with regard to grant of the appropriate pay­scale.  It hardly needs emphasis that grant of pay scale is a   highly   technical   and   complex   matter,   which   requires consideration of a host of factors, such as the qualifications for the posts, the method of recruitment, the nature of duties, etc.  Therefore, the Courts/ Tribunal are loathe to interfere in matters with regard to grant of pay­scale. In  Union of India v. P.V.   Hariharan,   (1997)   3   SCC   568,   it   was   observed   as follows:­ “5…We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are   interfering   with   pay   scales   without   proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of   the   Government   which   normally   acts   on   the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a  full  picture   before   it,   is   the   proper   authority  to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of “equal   pay   for   equal   work”   is   also   being misunderstood   and   misapplied,   freely   revising   and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and   trust   that   the   Tribunals   will   exercise   due restraint in the matter….” 6 7. There is no material to hold that pay­scale of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer in the Corporation was consciously kept at par with that of the Delhi Police keeping in mind   aspects   with   regard   to   the   qualifications,   nature   of duties, etc.  Merely because the pay­scale may have been and remained   the   same,   it   cannot   lead   to   the   conclusion   of   a conscious parity on the principle of equal pay for equal work so as to make it discriminatory and a ground for grant of parity   to   Assistant   Security   Officer,   Security   Havaldar   and Security Guard also.   The Tribunal ought to have refrained from going into the exercise of fixation of pay­scales no sooner that   it   was   brought   to   its   attention   that   a   Commission constituted for the purpose was examining the same.  Though the   Tribunal   examined   the   pay   scales   given   to   similarly situated security personnel in other organisations, and also the next below post principle in the Corporation itself, ignoring the difference in the methods of recruitment and qualifications for appointment in the two organisations, it primarily based its conclusion to grant parity of pay­scale to Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard merely for the 7 reason that parity of pay­scale existed for the posts of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer with that of the Delhi Police.  8. It is not in dispute that the pay­scale of the employees of the   Corporation,   including   the   security   cadre,   have   been revised   from   time   to   time   in   accordance   with   the th th th recommendations of 4 , 5 , 6  Pay­Commission and now the th 7  Pay­Commission.  There is no material on record that the appellant at any time filed any objection or raised issues for th grant   of   appropriate   pay­scale   either   before   the   4   Pay­ Commission or the successive Commissions.  If the award of the Tribunal is to be implemented today, it will create a highly anomalous   position   in   the   Corporation,   and   shall   lead   to serious complications with regard to the issues of pay­scale vis­à­vis recommendations of the Pay­Commission and would generate   further   heartburn   and   related   problems   vis­à­vis other employees of the Corporation. 8 9. The Government of Delhi, which would have had to bear the financial burden, did not concur with the Board of the Corporation to abide by the Award.  The vast difference in the nature of general duties performed by personnel of the police force   in   contradistinction   to   that   of   security   personnel discharging   limited   security   duties   in   the   confines   of   the Corporation hardly needs any emphasis.  We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Division Bench.  10.   The appeal is dismissed. ………………………………….J.  (Ranjan Gogoi)  ………………………………….J.  (R. Banumathi) .……….………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha) New Delhi, May 11, 2018. 9