MPSRTC employees are ineligible for Fifth Pay Commission scales, retaining only Fourth Pay Commission dearness allowance parity.

The petitioner, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC), challenged an order dated March 31, 2026, passed by the Industrial Court.

The Industrial Court had refused to grant an interim stay on a Labour Court direction that required the petitioner to pay Fifth Pay Commission benefits and other dues to the respondent workman.

The Industrial Court had summarily dismissed the stay application on the procedural ground that a delay in filing was yet to be condoned.

The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court should have granted the stay because the High Court, in CR No. 1073 of 2025, had already determined that MPSRTC employees are not entitled to Fifth Pay Commission benefits.

1. Whether the Industrial Court erred in summarily dismissing a stay application on procedural grounds (delay) when the underlying legal issue regarding Fifth Pay Commission benefits had been settled by higher courts.

2. Whether the respondent workman is entitled to Fifth Pay Commission benefits under the settlement dated September 3, 1988, in light of subsequent judicial pronouncements.

The court primarily applied the legal principles established in CR No. 1073 of 2025, which interpreted a 1988 settlement and a subsequent Industrial Tribunal award.

The rule dictates that while MPSRTC employees are entitled to Dearness Allowance (DA) parity with State Government employees under the Fourth Pay Commission, they are expressly excluded from Fifth Pay Commission pay scales.

This principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court's refusal to interfere with the Tribunal's findings and the State Government's subsequent decision dated January 15, 2021, which formally denied Fifth Pay Commission benefits to MPSRTC employees.

The High Court reasoned that the Industrial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly by dismissing the stay application solely due to pending delay condonation.

The court noted that the entitlement to Fifth Pay Commission benefits had already been "extinguished" by a final award of the Industrial Tribunal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The court highlighted that the State Government's 2021 decision denying these benefits remains valid and binding.

Consequently, the High Court found that the Industrial Court's refusal to consider the merits of the stay application—specifically the lack of legal entitlement to the benefits ordered by the Labour Court—constituted an error of law.

It held that the issue of non-applicability of the Fifth Pay Commission is settled and directed the Industrial Court to decide the stay application on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.

The court further ordered that the Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) issued by the Labour Court shall not be executed until the Industrial Court decides the stay application afresh.

The petition was disposed of with the clarification that employees may challenge the 2021 government order independently if aggrieved.