2019 (1) TMI 1995 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition - termination order - name of respondents-workmen has been included in the seniority list or not - retrenchment of appointed workmen - HELD THAT - The re-engagement of retrenched workmen is governed by Section 6Q of the Act which contemplates that where the workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to employ other persons he shall in such manner as may be prescribed give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment and the retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. The circular dated 07.04.2015 is in terms of the mandate of Section 6Q of the Act so as to maintain a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as and when the necessity arises - The Order of this Court dated 07.09.2015 is to take workmen on daily wage basis as per office order dated 07.04.2015. The argument that they accepted the order under the impression that the workmen are being reinstated cannot be accepted as the order dated 07.09.2015 has been passed on the basis of the circular dated 07.04.2015 which contemplates that the workmen shall be reinstated as per the seniority list as and when requirement in future arises. The Order of the Court cannot be interpreted on the basis of the impressions which may be drawn by the petitioners in view of the specific order passed by this Court on 07.09.2015. In the case of Surjit Singh 2009 (8) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT the question examined was in respect of applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work . The respondents therein were appointed as daily wagers without following any recruitment process. The question of reinstatement in pursuance of Award of Labour Court was not the issue raised or decided. In an Industrial Dispute the nature of engagement whether on muster rolls daily wages or ad-hoc basis is not the relevant consideration for an Award of reinstatement. The only question required to be examined is as to whether the workman has worked for 240 days in a preceding calendar year and as to whether the workman has been paid retrenchment compensation. The question of regularization or equal pay for equal work was not the dispute raised or examined by the Labour Court. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions when the order of the Court does not contain any direction for reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale. The contempt would be made out when there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this Court. Since the Order of this Court is not of reinstatement the petitioners under the garb of the contempt petition cannot seek reinstatement when nothing was granted by this Court. There are no merit in the present contempt petitions accordingly they are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 07.09.2015.
2. Reinstatement and regularization of retrenched workmen.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work."
4. Validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015.
5. Contempt of Court for non-compliance with reinstatement orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 07.09.2015:
The Supreme Court's order dated 07.09.2015 was based on a concession that the respondents-workmen would be taken on daily wage basis as per the office order dated 07.04.2015. The Court recorded that the names of the respondents-workmen were included in the list, and the special leave petitions were disposed of accordingly. The petitioners later alleged non-compliance with this order, leading to the filing of contempt petitions. However, the Court found no specific and categorical direction for reinstatement in the order dated 07.09.2015, and thus, the petitioners could not claim reinstatement based on impressions.

2. Reinstatement and regularization of retrenched workmen:
The petitioners sought reinstatement and regularization against vacant Group D posts, arguing that they had worked for more than 240 days and should be reinstated as per the previous High Court orders. The Court noted that the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015, issued in compliance with Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, maintained a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as and when the necessity arises. The Court emphasized that the petitioners could not claim regular appointment against Group D posts without fulfilling the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules.

3. Applicability of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work":
The petitioners relied on judgments such as State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh and State of Punjab & Others v. Jagjit Singh to argue for equal pay for equal work. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that they dealt with temporarily engaged employees performing the same duties as regular employees, which was not the case here. The Court reiterated that 240 days of continuous service does not entitle a workman to permanent status, and reinstatement would restore the workman to the same status held at termination, subject to availability of such posts.

4. Validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015:
The circular dated 07.04.2015 was issued to comply with the High Court's directions and maintained a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as per seniority when the need arose. The Court found this circular to be in line with Section 6Q of the Act and held that the order dated 07.09.2015 was passed based on this circular. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that they accepted the order under the impression of reinstatement, as the order clearly stated engagement as per seniority and future necessity.

5. Contempt of Court for non-compliance with reinstatement orders:
The petitioners alleged contempt for non-compliance with the reinstatement orders. The Court, however, found no wilful disobedience by the Jal Nigam, as there was no specific direction for reinstatement in the order dated 07.09.2015. The Court dismissed the contempt petitions, stating that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked based on impressions when the Court's order did not contain any direction for reinstatement or regular pay scale. The Court also noted that 61 petitioners were not parties in the original special leave petitions and thus could not claim grievance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, finding no merit in the claims of non-compliance with the order dated 07.09.2015. The Court upheld the validity of the Jal Nigam's circular dated 07.04.2015 and emphasized that the petitioners could not claim reinstatement or regular appointment without fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions. The Court also clarified that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was not applicable in this case. The services of the workmen already engaged were not affected by this order.