Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2018
Citation: DTC Security Staff Union (Regd.) vs. DTC and Another, Civil Appeal No(s). 5005 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 8039 of 2016)
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J., Navin Sinha, J.
Can an Industrial Tribunal interfere with pay scales set by a Pay Commission? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) security staff. The court examined whether the Industrial Tribunal was correct in granting parity in pay scales between the security staff of DTC and the Delhi Police. The bench comprised Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, and Navin Sinha, with the judgment authored by Justice Navin Sinha.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a demand by the DTC Security Staff Union for a revision of pay scales for security staff up to the rank of Assistant Security Inspector. The Union sought parity with their counterparts in the Delhi Police. The Industrial Tribunal, in its award dated August 22, 1985, granted this parity to Assistant Security Officers, Security Havaldars, and Security Guards, effective from October 1, 1979. The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) challenged this award. The Single Judge upheld the award, but the Division Bench overturned it, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24.10.1979 | The Appellant Union sought a Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for revision of pay scales. |
| 01.10.1979 | The Industrial Tribunal granted the pay scale to the security staff with effect from this date. |
| 22.08.1985 | The Industrial Tribunal issued an Award granting parity in pay scales to certain security staff with the Delhi Police. |
| 01.01.1973 | The pay scales for posts in the Security Cadre were based on the 3rd Pay Commission recommendations. |
| 01.01.1986 | The pay scales were revised in accordance with the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. |
| 01.01.1996 | The pay scales were revised in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. |
| 01.01.2006 | The pay scales were revised in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. |
| May 11, 2018 | The Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Industrial Tribunal ruled in favor of the DTC Security Staff Union, granting pay parity with the Delhi Police. The Corporation challenged this award before a Single Judge of the High Court, who upheld the Tribunal’s decision. However, on further appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s award. This reversal by the Division Bench led the Union to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the principles of equal pay for equal work. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 aims to ensure social justice and maintain harmony between employers and workmen. The Supreme Court also considered the role of Pay Commissions in setting pay scales.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellant (DTC Security Staff Union)
- The Tribunal’s decision to grant parity in pay scales with the Delhi Police was based on a thorough examination of material evidence, including the similarity in the nature of duties.
- Parity existed for the posts of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer with the Delhi Police, and the same principle should extend to the posts of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar, and Security Guard.
- The denial of parity for these posts was arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work.
- The nature of duties performed by these posts was similar to those of equivalent ranks in the Delhi Police.
- Paucity of funds cannot be a justification to deny parity in pay-scale.
Arguments of the Respondent (DTC)
- The pay scales for posts in the Security Cadre were based on the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission dated 01.01.1973.
- Pay scales have been periodically revised based on the recommendations of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Pay Commissions.
- The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which funds the Corporation, did not approve the implementation of the award due to financial implications.
- The nature of duties performed by the security personnel of the Corporation was different from that of the Delhi Police.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions of Appellant | Sub-Submissions of Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Parity in Pay Scales |
✓ Tribunal considered material evidence. ✓ Similarity in nature of duties. ✓ Existing parity for higher posts. ✓ Parity with other organizations. ✓ Denial of parity is arbitrary. ✓ Constitutional ethos of living wage. ✓ Paucity of funds is not a justification. |
✓ Pay scales based on 3rd Pay Commission. ✓ Pay scales revised by subsequent commissions. ✓ Government did not approve the award. ✓ Financial implications. ✓ Difference in nature of duties from Delhi Police. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in granting parity in pay scales between the security staff of DTC and the Delhi Police, especially when Pay Commissions had already addressed the issue of pay scales for the Corporation’s employees.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Industrial Tribunal was correct in granting parity in pay scales? | No. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in granting parity in pay scales. | The Court emphasized that the fixation of pay scales is a complex matter that should be primarily addressed by Pay Commissions. The Tribunal should have refrained from interfering, especially when a Pay Commission was already examining the issue. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
- Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that Tribunals should not interfere with pay scales without proper reasons, as it is the function of the Government, acting on the recommendations of a Pay Commission, to fix pay scales. The court observed that tribunals often misunderstand and misapply the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work.”
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Tribunal granted parity based on similarity of duties and existing parity for higher posts. | The Court held that the Tribunal erred by not considering that a Pay Commission was examining the issue. It also noted that the Tribunal did not consider the differences in methods of recruitment and qualifications. |
| The Appellant argued that parity existed till 1962 and was arbitrarily denied for lower posts. | The Court noted that while parity existed for some posts, it did not automatically justify extending it to all posts without proper evaluation by a Pay Commission. |
| The Respondent argued that pay scales were based on Pay Commission recommendations and the government did not approve the award. | The Court agreed that pay scales are to be determined by Pay Commissions and that the government’s financial concerns were valid. |
Authorities Viewed by the Court:
- Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568: The Supreme Court followed this authority, emphasizing that Tribunals should not interfere with pay scales without proper reasons.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the determination of pay scales is a complex matter best left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions. The Court emphasized the need for restraint by Industrial Tribunals in such matters, especially when a Pay Commission is already addressing the issue. The financial implications for the government were also a significant factor.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for Expert Evaluation | 40% |
| Restraint by Tribunals | 30% |
| Financial Implications | 20% |
| Complexity of Pay Scale Determination | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- “It hardly needs emphasis that grant of pay scale is a highly technical and complex matter, which requires consideration of a host of factors, such as the qualifications for the posts, the method of recruitment, the nature of duties, etc.”
- “The Tribunal ought to have refrained from going into the exercise of fixation of payscales no sooner that it was brought to its attention that a Commission constituted for the purpose was examining the same.”
- “If the award of the Tribunal is to be implemented today, it will create a highly anomalous position in the Corporation, and shall lead to serious complications with regard to the issues of payscale visàvis recommendations of the PayCommission and would generate further heartburn and related problems visàvis other employees of the Corporation.”
There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench unanimously agreed with the reasoning.
Key Takeaways
- Industrial Tribunals should exercise restraint when dealing with matters of pay scale, especially when a Pay Commission is already examining the issue.
- Fixation of pay scales is a complex matter that requires consideration of various factors, and it is best left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions.
- Financial implications are a valid consideration in matters of pay scale.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Industrial Tribunals should not interfere with pay scales when a Pay Commission is already examining the matter. This reinforces the principle that pay scale determination is a complex, technical issue that should be handled by expert bodies. There is no change in the previous position of law but the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of non-interference by the Tribunal in matters of pay scale.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in granting parity in pay scales between the security staff of DTC and the Delhi Police. The Court emphasized that the determination of pay scales is a complex matter best left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions, and that Tribunals should exercise restraint in such matters.
Source: DTC Security Staff Union vs. DTC
FAQ
- Q: Can an Industrial Tribunal change the pay scales of employees?
- A: The Supreme Court has said that Industrial Tribunals should generally not interfere with pay scales, especially when a Pay Commission is already reviewing them. Pay scale determination is complex and requires expert evaluation.
- Q: What is a Pay Commission?
- A: A Pay Commission is a body constituted by the government to review and recommend changes to the pay scales of government employees and employees of government-funded corporations.
- Q: What does “equal pay for equal work” mean?
- A: “Equal pay for equal work” is a principle that people who do the same job should get the same pay. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this principle should not be applied freely to revise pay scales across the board without proper evaluation by an expert body.
- Q: What was the main reason the Supreme Court rejected the Industrial Tribunal’s decision?
- A: The main reason was that the Tribunal interfered with pay scales when a Pay Commission was already examining the issue. The Supreme Court held that pay scale determination is a complex matter best left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions.
- Q: What should employees do if they feel their pay scale is unfair?
- A: Employees should raise their concerns with the Pay Commission or the relevant authorities. They can also approach the court, but the court has clarified that it would not interfere in the pay scales unless there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.