PROCESS TECHNICIANS AND ANALYSTS' UNION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 10-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PROCESS TECHNICIANS AND ANALYSTS' UNION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
'i 
MARCH 10, 1997 
B 
[AM. AHMADI, 0. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
Labour Law: 
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Determination of Conditions of 
C Service of Employees) Act, 1988: Section 3. 
Powel'-Confe"ed on Central Government-To frame Scheme-Held: 
Not unguided-Constitution of India, Article 14--Administrative Law. 
Section 3(1) & (2)-Provision enabled Central Government to protect 
D wages of pie-nationalisation employees of Corporation while framing Sr;heme 
under S.3( 1)-Constitutionality of-Held: Not violative of Art. 14--Historical 
background of creation of Corporation and the fact that the group of pre· 
nationalisation emp~oyees was a dwindling group taken into considera-
tion-Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976, S. 9. 
E 
Statement of Objects and Reasons-Paragraphs 3 and 4--Public Sector 
F 
wage policy-Held : Contention that there was no such policy and, therefore, 
basis of Act unfounded, rejected. 
· 
Section 3(4)--f'owel'-Confmed 011 Central Government-To frame 
Scheme-Retrospectively-Validity of-Held : Such power valid: 
Section 3(1)-Validity of-Held: Such legislation was within the legis-
lative competence of Parliament-Contention that retrospective operation of 
Act aimed at setting aside earlier judgment of Industrial Court rejected. 
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Determination of Condition of 
G Service of Post-Nationalisation Refinery Employees) Scheme, 1989. 
Pre-nationalisation . and post-nationalisation employees--Distinction 
between-In matter of wages-Held : Not discriminatory. 
Retrospective operation of-From a date prior to coming into force of 
H 
par~nt Act-Validity of-Held : Such Scheme was valid. 
798 
' ,, 
.. 
PROCESS TECHNICIANS AND ANALYSTS' UNION v. U.O.I. 
799 
Retrospective operation of-<:ontention that Scheme aimed at setting A 
aside earlier judgment of Industrial Court, rejected. 
Wages-Difference between wages of refinery employees of Bharat 
Petroleum Corporation under Scheme of 1989 and wages of employees of 
Marketing Division of the same Corporatio1t-Validity of-Held : Not dis-
criminatory as the latter were receiving their wages under a settlement with the B 
Corporation, while the f onner could not reach any such settlement and were, 
consequently, governed by the Scheme-Hence each of them constituted a 
distinct clasr-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Detennination of Condi-
tions of Service of Employees) Act, 1989. 
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Detennination of Conditions of 
Service of Post-Nationalisation Refinery Employees) Amendment Scheme, 
1996. 
c 
Clause 3-Employees who entered into settlement with Corpora-
tion--£xclusion of-From ambit of-Union refu,sed to enter into such settle.- D 
ment-Such exclusion not discriminatory-Such union was governed by 
Scheme and, therefore, could not complain of discrimination-Further, con-
siderations which go into finalising settlements on part of employer were very 
different from considerations governing framing of statutory Scheme by 
Central Government. 
E 
Clause 3-Most of the employees of Corporation stood excluded 
from the Scheme because they entered into settlement with Corporatio1t-A 
single Union which did not enter into such settlement, covered by 
Scheme-<:omplaint of such Union being singled out-Validity of-Held : In 
such circumstances, members of such Union could not complain of being F 
singled out-<:onstitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16. 
, The entire share capital of Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. was pur-
chased by the Government of India and Burmah Sell Refineries Ltd. 
became a Government Company, and later a Public Sector Undertaking. 
The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company which was a G 
I 
I 
foreign company was acquired by the Central Government by enacting the 
Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976. After the 
acquisition of the Burmah Sfie~I Oil Storage and Distributing C9mpa'9'; 
both these compllnies was merged and a notification was issued under 
Section 7 of the Said Act, vesting the undertakings of the Burmah Shell H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A Oil Storage and Distributing Company in Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. 
B 
The name of the said company was changed to Bharat Petroleum Corpora-
tion Ltd. Upto the date of acquisition there were approximately 220 Bur-
mah Shell workmen who were working in the Refinery Company. 
Su

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