CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus N.T.C (W.B.A.B. &.O) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 14-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
B 
TEXTILES CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
N.T.C. (W.B.A.B. &.O) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
C 
Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974-Section 
5(2)(c)-Sick textile mills taken over by Central Government under the 
Act-Staff working in mills seeking parity in pay scales with staff working 
in corporate offices-Claim of-National Industrial Tribunal and a 
Committee, appointed for the purpose, holding that there is no equal work 
between two categories of staff-Disparity widening during the period 
D under litigation-Plea of additional financial burden since rehabilitation 
schemes already pending before BIFR-Held, on facts, the claim of equal 
pay for equal work not tenable on the basis of the findings of the two fact 
finding bodies-However, there is no justification in discrimination by 
Central Government between two categories of staff-Since both the 
E categories belong to one parent company, the financial burden should be 
shared by both-Central Government has to discharge its responsibility 
de hors the BIFR schemes-Central Government to work out the extent of 
relief to staff working in mills within four months and to implement it within 
two months thereafter-Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 39(d)-
F Equal pay for equal work. 
The Central Government took over various sick textile mills in 
different parts of the country under the Sick Textile Undertakings 
(Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and transferred them to National Textile 
Corporation Ltd. (NTC). The staff/sub staff working in the mills 
G claimed parity with the pay scales given to the staff working in the 
corporate offices of NTC and its subsidiaries on the basis of 'equal pay 
equal work'. They claimed that the nature of work performed by them 
is the same as those working in the corporate offices. Some associations 
filed petitions before various High Courts seeking revision of pay scales 
H on the plea of 'equal pay for equal work'. This Court directed the cases 
722 
t 
J 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD. v. NT.C.(WBAB & 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION 723 
to be transferred to itself from different High Courts. In 1989, this A 
Court, with a view to find an amicable settlement, directed the National 
Industrial Tribunal to look into and resolve the controversies. The 
Tribunal submitted a Report in 1996 finding that then! is no equal 
work between the two categories of staff. The Tribunal, however, failed 
to resolve the controversies. In the mean time, during the pendency of B 
the matter, the management refused to revise the pay scales of the staff 
working in the mills on the plea that the matter was subjudice. This 
resulted in widening the disparity in pay scales between the two groups 
from 159% in 1987 to 642% in 2000. 
On the direction of this Court, the Central Government in 1999 C 
appointed a one man Committee (Sathyam Committee) to look into the 
grievances of the staff and sub staff of the NTC mill regarding their 
pay structure. The Committee gave a report in October 2000 stating 
that the two categories of employees are not performing equal work 
and that they are not entitled for equal pay. The Committee, however, D 
recommended some 'special relier to the staff working in the mills on 
account of delay in settlement of the dispute. 
The Union of India contended that the recommendations of the 
Sathyam Committee have been implemented in full and nothing 
survives; that various mills were declared sick under the Sick Industries E 
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) and that the 
proceedings before the Board oflndustrial and Financial Reconstruction 
(BIFR) for rehabilitation are pending; that for some sick mills, the 
BIFR had already formulated and sanctioned schemes and are being 
implemented; that any grant of further relief to the workers will put F 
additional financial burden and would upset the rehabilitation; and 
that there is disparity since the staff of corporate offices is on the 
Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern while the staff working in 
the mills is on the variable Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) 
pattern governed by region-cum-industry awards. 
The respondent-Associations contended that there is equality and 
parity in the work and the working conditions between the two 
categories and hence are entitled for equal pay. 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.