LexUMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT versus THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 659 UMRALAGRAM PANCHAYAT v. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3209-3210 of 2015) MARCH 27, 2015 A B [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss.2(ra), 25(T)- Unfair labour practice- Daily wage workers - Benefit of permanency, entitlement of - Workmen appointed to the post of safai kamdars of the Gram Panchayat- Serving for varied years- o 18 years, 16 years, 8 years, 5 years but considered as daily wage workers- Industrial dispute raised by workmen seeking benefit of permanency under the Panchayat-Award passed by the labour court that workmen to be made permanent employees - Said award upheld by the High Court - E · Justification of- Held: Orders of the High Court and the Award passed by the Labour Court was reasonable and has been arrived at in a just and fair manner - Workmen did the same work which was being done by the permanent workmen of the Panchayat, they worked for similar number of hours, F however; there is discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and non-permanent workmen - The same amounted to unfair labour practice as defined u/s.2(ra) which is prohibited uls. 25(T) - Further; there was no restriction G for recruitment of workmen in the Panchayat set up, financial position of the Panchayat is sound -Also principle of equal work, equal pay has been violated by the Panchayat- Thus, services of the workmen are held permanent in nature, since they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year H 659 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A from the date of their initial appointment- Panchayat directed to treat services of the workmen as permanent employees after five years of their initial appointment and pay regular pay scale - Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court ·HELD: 1.1 It is an admitted fact that the work which was being done by the concerned workmen was the same as that of the permanent workmen of the c appellant-Panchayat. They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice D as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Act. Further, there is no documentary evidence produced on record before the Labour Court by the appellant E panchayat which shows that the present workmen are working less or for lesser number of hours than the permanent employees of the appellant-Panchayat. Thus, on the face of it, the work being done by the concerned F workmen has been permanent in nature and the Labour Court as well as the High Court have come to the right conclusion on the points of dispute and have rightly rejected the submission of the appellant-Panchayat as the same amounts to unfair labour practice by the G appellant-Panchayat which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Act and it also amounts to statutory offence on the part of the appellant under Section 25(U) of the ID Act for which it is liable to be prosecuted. [Para 10] [667-D-H; 668-A] H UMRALAGRAM PANCHAYATv. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL 661 EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. 1.2 The Labour Court has rightly held that there A is no restriction for the recruitment of the workmen in the Panchayat's set-up as there is evidence to show that by making a proposal, the District Panchayat has increased the work force in the establishment of the appellant-Panchayat. Further, the financial position of the B Panchayat is not so unsound as no activity of the Panchayat has been discontinued, as all the other workers of the Panchayat are being paid their wages regularly. Thus, there would be no difficulty for the C Panchayat to bear the extra cost for the payment of the wages/salary and other monetary benefits to the concerned workmen if they are made permanent. Further, Section 25(T) of the ID Act clearly states that unfair labour practice should not be encouraged and the o same should be discontinued. In the instant case, the principle "equal work, equal pay" has been violated by the Panchayat as they have been treating the concerned workmen unfairly and therefore, the demand raised by the respondent-Union should be accepted. [Paras 11,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.