Madras HC Rejects Transport Corporation Employee’s Pay-Parity Plea, Citing Earlier Punishment For Unauthorised Absence That Cut His Pay To Lowest Level

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his pay refixed on par with co-employees despite the pay-reduction punishment recorded in his service history

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner’s claim for pay refixation on par with Murali and Thirupathi could not be granted, given the pay-reduction punishment recorded in his service history.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner was dismissed on 17.08.2010.

p. 1

The Corporation’s approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was rejected; in subsequent proceedings, the High Court directed his reinstatement without back wages on 10.07.2023.

p. 2

After reinstatement, the petitioner sought refixation of his pay on par with two co-employees, Murali and Thirupathi, alleging that his pay had not been fixed correctly from 28.10.2023.

pp. 1–3, 5

The Corporation opposed the claim, relying on his service record, including a 12.03.2010 punishment reducing his pay to the lowest level.

pp. 1–3, 5

The petitioner sought consideration of his representation dated 17.08.2024

pp. 1–3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his pay refixed on par with co-employees despite the pay-reduction punishment recorded in his service history

pp. 3, 5–6

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s request for consideration of his representation seeking such refixation could be granted

pp. 1–2, 6

03Law Applied

The Court considered the prior reinstatement order dated 10.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.14396 and 14397 of 2016, which directed reinstatement without back wages, and the Corporation’s approval proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

p. 2

It applied no separately cited precedent or general statutory rule concerning pay parity; its reasoning turned on the petitioner’s service-register entries and the recorded punishment reducing his pay to the lowest level, which informed the pay fixation

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33

04Reasoning

The Court treated the petitioner’s sole live grievance as the difference between his pay and that of the two named co-employees.

pp. 3–6

The Corporation’s counter-affidavit detailed several punishments and showed that the petitioner’s pay had been reduced to the lowest level on 12.03.2010.

pp. 3–6

Because his pay was fixed by reference to his service record and that punishment, the Court held that he could not claim the same pay as colleagues who had not been shown to have the same relevant service history

pp. 3–6

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner’s claim for pay refixation on par with Murali and Thirupathi could not be granted, given the pay-reduction punishment recorded in his service history.

pp. 6–7

It dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.

pp. 6–7

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF