NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL versus PAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
- I 
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
A 
}'. 
PAN SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.18: 
c 
Shifis-lncharge working in higher scale of pay opted to serve as Meter 
Readers in lower scale of pay-Pay protection provided by employer-New 
Delhi Municipal Council-Employees serving as Meter Readers at relevant 
time raising an industrial dispute claiming pay parity-Industrial Tribunal 
allowing pay parity to them fixing a cut-off date-Filing of a writ petition D 
by subsequent appointee-Meter Readers claiming parity in pay scales with 
the earlier Awardees-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Employer 
-· ~ 
allowed higher pay scale to shift Incharge in order to protect their pay-
/ndustrial Tribunal allowed pay parity to Meter-Readers who have been 
serving as such at the relevant time by fixing a cut-off date-Subsequent 
appointee-Meter Readers were neither parties to the Industrial dispute nor E 
they raise any grievance in regard to their condition of service-They filed 
writ petition only after 17 years after their appointment-Discretionary 
jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who have not approached 
the Court within a reasonable time-It was not a fit case where the High 
Court should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of writ F 
petitioners-Meter Readers-Hence, impugned order cannot be sustained and 
set aside. 
There were posts of Meter Readers as also Shifts Incharge in the pay 
scale of Rs. 220-400 and Rs. 185-300 respectively in the New Delhi Municipal 
Council (NDMC)/appellant. The posts of Meter Readers were meant to be G 
filled up by direct recruitment. 17 senior most Shifts In charge, however, 
for certain reasons opted to become Meter Readers which was allowed by the 
appellant-employer. As they were working in a higher scale of pay, their pay 
was protected. Some other Meter Readers who were working as such at the 
711 
H 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S.C.R. 
A relevant time raised an industrial dispu.te purported to be on the premise that 
they had been discriminated against. The Industrial Tribunal by reason of an 
Award allowed pay parity to them. Subsequent appointees-Meter Readers/ 
respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court claiming parity in 
the matter of grant of scale of pay with the Awardees-Meter Readers whose 
pay scale was revised earlier in terms of an Award of the Industrial Court. 
B The Writ Petitions have been allowed by the High Court observing that 
although they are not covered by the Award, but the appellant being model 
employer must grant the same scale of pay to them as granted earlier to other 
serving Meter Readers. 
C 
Appellant-ND MC contended that once the cut off date was fixed by the 
Tribunal, the respondents, having joined the services of the appellant 
thereafter, could not have been directed to be treated alike in the matter of 
grant of the same scale of pay; and that the Writ Petitions having been filed 
in July, 1999, the High Court committed a serious illegality in directing back 
wages in their favour. 
D 
Respondent submitted that the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was 
binding upon the appellant in terms of Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial 
j . 
Disputes Act and in that view of the matter, as respondents perform same or 
)"' ~ 
E 
F 
similar nature of duties as are being performed by the other workmen, they 
were entitled to be treated alike; and that the respondent did not raise a 
separate industrial dispute as they had all along been under the impression 
that they would be covered by the Award which may be made in the said 
Reference. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Seventeen persons who were granted higher scale of pay 
had been working as Shifts In charge. As Shifts In charge, they were entitled 
to a higher scale of pay. They were given a higher scale so as to protect 
their pay which were personal to them and that too on an ad-hoc measure. It 
was not by way of a revision of scale of pay as understood in the ordinary 
G sense of the term. [Para to] [717-C) 
1.2. The Industrial Tribunal in its A ward proceeded on the basis that 
the concerned workmen were entitled to the benefit of higher scale as they 
were similarly situated to those 17 senior most Meter Readers. The direction 
in terms of the Award was confined only to those who were in employment at 
H the time when the said benefit was given

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