TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN versus TNEB-THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 13-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
v.
TNEB-THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA
SANGAM BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
(Civil Appeal No. 1653 of  2019)
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Labour Laws:
Payment of Dearness Allowance  – Settlement between the
employer-Board and its workmen u/s. 18 of Industrial Disputes Act –
As per one of the terms of settlement Dearness Allowance rates
were to be revised twice in a year i.e. on 1st January and 1st July
taking into account the variations in previous 12 months average
of All India Consumer Price Index Numbers – Pursuant to the
settlement, in the proceedings of the employer-Board it was decided
that Dearness Allowance would be sanctioned to the employees of
the Board as granted by the State Government to its employees at
the same rate and from the same date – State Government, due to
financial crunch revised the Dearness Allowance later than it was
granted to the Central Government employees for the relevant year –
Employer-Board also adopted the order of State Government in
revising the Dearness Allowance – Respondent-Workers’ Union filed
writ petitions seeking  direction to pay Dearness Allowance at the
rate and from the date when it was paid to the Central Government
employees – Single Judge of High Court allowed the petitions –
Division Bench of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge –
On appeal, held: Payment of Dearness Allowance was governed
by the Settlement and the Board Proceedings – All along, the revision
of Dearness Allowance had been paid at par with the employees of
the State Government – There is no rule or obligation on the State
Government to always adopt the Dearness Allowance as revised by
Central Government – The revision of wage or Dearness Allowance
would depend upon the ability and financial position of the employer–
The employer-board is run by the State Government – It was within
the power of the Board to set a cut-off date for payment of revised
Dearness Allowance keeping in view financial constraints of the
State – Therefore, employees’ demand for revision in Dearness
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 150
150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
Allowance at a higher rate than what was granted by the State
Government to its employees is not warranted – Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 – s. 18.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Payment of Dearness Allowance was governed
by the Wage Settlement dated 08.07.1998 and the Board
Proceedings BP (FB) No.58 dated 18.07.1998. The increases in
Dearness Allowance which fell due w.e.f. 01.07.1998, 01.01.1999,
01.07.1999, 01.01.2000, 01.07.2000, 01.01.2001 and 01.07.2001
were all paid as per the above agreed term only. As per settlement
dated 08.07.1998, the Dearness Allowance rates were to be
revised twice in a year i.e. on 1st January and on 1st July taking
into account the variations in the previous twelve months average
of the All India Consumer Price Index Numbers adopting the
same formula as followed by the State Government.  The Board
Proceeding BP(FB) No.58 dated 18.07.1998 stipulated that the
revised Dearness Allowance would be sanctioned to the
employees of the Board as granted by the State Government to
their employees at the same rate and from the same date.  In the
subsequent wage settlement entered into between the appellant-
Board and the respondent-union on 15.10.2005 (w.e.f. 01.12.2002)
stipulates the existing practice of sanction of Dearness Allowance
to the employees of the Board as granted by the State Government
to their employees at the same rate and from the same date. The
subsequent settlement also reiterates that all along, the revision
of Dearness Allowance to the employees of the Board was on par
with the employees of the State Government. [Para 19][161-C-F]
2. The respondent(s) union having agreed that the revised
Dearness Allowance will be sanctioned as granted by the State
Government to their employees, the appellant-Board has been
consistently adopting the revised rates of Dearness Allowance
following various State Government orders. Having agreed for
the grant of revised Dearness Allowance on par with the State
Government employees, the respondent(s) union cannot seek
for revision in Dearness Allowance at a higher rate than what
was granted by the State Government to its employees.
[Para 19][161-G-H]
151
TNEB v. TNEB-THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152                    SUPREME COURT REPOR

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