MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. versus PREMLAL

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. 
A 
v. 
,:;y 
PREM LAL 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
;... 
[S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Agreement between Corporation and Trade Union providing time scale c 
of pay to ad-hoc employees working continuously for 180 days-Subsequent 
agreement providing absorption of daily rated workmen after completion of 
180 days continuous service-Daily rated and ad-hoc employee claiming 
parity of wages with regular employees-Corporation apposing claim 
contending that earlier settlement stood superseded by subsequent settlement-
Held, the two settlements operated in different fields and the subsequent D 
settlement did not supersede earlier settlement-There is difference between 
statuo· of an employee on one hand and benefits accruing to workmen on the 
other land-In the facts, held, casual or daily rated workmen entitled to 
J 
benefits admissible to regular employees on time scale of pay subject to their 
satisfoing the conditions prescribed therein. 
E 
Appellant-Corporation and Trade Union representing the employees 
entered into industrial settlement in 1956 and clause 49 of the said settlement 
provided that all employees working for 180 days including weekly offs and 
other holidays continuously, were to be brought on the time scale of pay and 
were to be given all benefits available to time scale workers. Subsequently, in F 
1985 another settlement was arrived and clause 19 of said settlement provided 
for absorption of daily rated workmen after completion of 180 days of 
-< 
continuous service. The Industrial Court upon complaint filed by an employee 
. ' 
appointed in 1988 held that the Corporation had engaged in unfair labour 
practice by not bringing the complainant on time scale of pay in terms of clause 
49 of 1956 Settlement and directed the Corporation to fix pay of the complainant G 
in the time scale. Appellant-Corporation challenged the order passed by the 
Industrial Court before the High Court which was rejected . 
. 
' 
Appellant-Corporation inter alia contended that clause 49 of 1956 
Settlement stood superseded by clause 19of1985 Settlement; that clause 49 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A of 1956 Settlement was cancelled and revised in the Joint Committee Meeting 
held on 15.4.1978; and that decision of the Joint Committee dated 15.4.1978 
stood approved by Resolution No. 8856 of the Corporation dated 31.8.1978. 
-+:, 
Workmen inter a/ia contended that clause 49of1956 Settlement and 
clause 19of1985 settlement operated in different fields and, therefore, there 
~ 
B was no question of clause 49 of 1956 s~ttlement being superseded by clause 
19 of 1985 Settlement; and in the alternative that when the Joint Committee 
cancelled clause 49 of 1956 Settlement, the said clause was replaced by new 
clause accepted by Corporation under Resolution No. 8856 providing that 
casual or daily wage employees shall be entitled to benefits admissible to 
c regular employees on time scale of pay provided they satisfy the conditions 
prescribed for their entitlement. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and Clause 19 of 1985 
D Settlement operated in different fields and consequently Clause 19 of 1985 
Settlement did not supersede Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. There is a 
difference between the status of an employee on one hand and the benefits 
accruing to the workmen on the other hand. In 1956 the Union presented to 
the Corporation various demands. One of the demands was abolition of the 
.. 
daily-wage system. Under Clause 49of1956 the Corporation agreed to give 
E to the workmen all the benefits available to a time scale worker. On the other 
hand, under Clause 19of1985 Settlement, subject to a worker fulfilling the 
eligibility criteria, the Corporation agreed to absord daily rated workmen who 
completed 180 days of service. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding 
that the above two clauses operated in different fields and, therefore, there 
F was no question of Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement superseding Clause 49 of 
1956 Settlement. Under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement, the Corporation 
agreed to provide benefits to employees working for 180 days continuously to 
be given all benefits available to time scale workers. !Para 8] 1316-A-Fl 
~ 
2. It is true that the Union had agreed to the cancellation of Clause 49. 
G However, the Union had also placed their demand for substitution of Clause 
49 an

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