Supreme Court Upholds GSRTC’s Stance on Badli Kamdar Absorption: Bhupendra Kumar vs. GSRTC (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 7 March 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 186

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a daily wage worker’s service for the purpose of time scale be counted from the initial date of joining or from the date of absorption into a permanent position? The Supreme Court in this case examined the dispute regarding the date from which “Badli Kamdars” (daily wagers) of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) are entitled to permanent status and time-scale benefits. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of a settlement agreement between the GSRTC and its employees’ union.

Case Background

The case involves several appeals filed by “Badli Kamdars” (daily wagers) of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC). These workers were initially employed on a temporary basis and later absorbed into permanent positions as conductors. The dispute arose regarding the date from which these employees should be granted the benefits of permanent status and time-scale pay. The employees argued that their service should be counted from their initial date of joining as “Badli Kamdars,” while the GSRTC contended that the benefits should be granted from the date of their absorption into the permanent cadre.

For instance, Prafulbhai Hirabhai Solanki joined the GSRTC as a “Badali Kamdar” on June 4, 1999. He was absorbed as a permanent conductor on August 27, 2008, and given a time scale from that date. Similar situations were faced by other “Badali Kamdars” who were made permanent as and when vacancies arose. The employees sought to have their permanent status and time scale benefits calculated from their initial date of joining as “Badli Kamdars” and not from the date of absorption.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The dispute was initially referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal ruled in favor of the employees, holding that they were entitled to permanent absorption and time-scale benefits from the date of their initial joining as “Badli Kamdars.” The GSRTC challenged this award by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Industrial Tribunal’s award and upholding the GSRTC’s position that benefits should be granted from the date of absorption into the permanent cadre. The employees then filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court, which were also dismissed, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the settlement agreement dated 21.12.1989 between the GSRTC and its workers’ union. Clause 20 of this settlement deals with the absorption of “Badali Kamdars” into the permanent cadre and the grant of time scales. It specifies that after preparing division-wise lists of selected employees, they will be given temporary/daily wager appointments against permanent posts. If such a temporary/daily wager works continuously for 180 days, including weekly and paid holidays, they will be taken on a time scale. The settlement also states that if recruitment of staff has been done as temporary or Badli Kamdar, then after completion of 180 days of service on the permitted vacancies, they would be taken on time scale serially. The relevant portion of Clause 20 of the Settlement dated 21.12.1989 is as follows:

“In reference to the representation made to delete the provision of the section 29 of the settlement dated 23/11/1984 and implement the provision of section 43 of the settlement dated 22/10/1964 it is determined that after preparing the Division wise list of the selected employees they will be given temporary/daily wager appointment against the permanent posts in the division/unit, and if such appointed temporary/daily wager has worked continuously for 180 days including the weekly holiday/paid holiday and authorize leave then they will be taken on time scale. This provision will not be applicable to the employees on work charge working in the Civil Engineering Department and such appointed temporary/daily wager has worked continuously for 180 days including the weekly holiday/paid holiday and authorized leave then they will be taken in time scale and they will be entitled to all benefits available to time scale employees. The absence due to authorized leave for the above purpose will not be considered break and these days will not be considered for 180 days service. As per permission of S.T.T. 1981, if the recruitment of the staff has been done as a temporary or badli kamdar then after completion of their 180 days of service on the permitted vacancies they would be taken on time scale serially. Such workers will be granted all benefits as per the Rules along with the notional increment with effect from 1.8.87 and there will not be any recoveries made from them nor there will be any arrears paid. The workmen taken into service are not required during the monsoon, therefore they can be retrenched as per the requirement and after the monsoon if their services are required then again as per seniority they will be taken in time scale. If there is any permanent post vacant then the appointment of the administrative staff will be made on time scale.”

The Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 18, which makes settlements binding on employers and employees, is also relevant. Additionally, the explanation to Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act defines “Badli Kamdar.”

Arguments

Appellants’ (Employees’) Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and should not have been overturned by the High Court.
• They contended that they were entitled to permanent absorption and time-scale benefits from the date of their initial joining as “Badli Kamdars,” not from the date of their absorption into permanent positions.
• The appellants relied on previous judicial orders in similar cases, arguing that these orders had decided the issue in their favor.
• The employees submitted that the 180 days of service should be counted from the initial date of joining as “Badli Kamdar” and not from the date of absorption.

Respondent’s (GSRTC) Arguments:

• The GSRTC argued that the High Court’s concurrent findings were correct and should be upheld.
• They contended that their actions were in conformity with Clause 20 of the settlement agreement, which stipulates that the benefit of time scale should be given after 180 days of continuous service in the permanent cadre.
• The GSRTC maintained that the benefit of time scale should be granted from the date when the employees were absorbed in the permanent cadre and not from the date of their initial joining as “Badli Kamdar”.

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of Clause 20 of the settlement agreement. The employees interpreted it to mean that their service as “Badli Kamdars” should be counted towards the 180 days needed for time-scale benefits, while the GSRTC interpreted it to mean that the 180 days should be counted after their absorption into the permanent cadre.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the “Badli Kamdars” are entitled to the benefit of permanent absorption and time scale from the date of their initial joining as “Badli Kamdar” or from the date of their absorption into the permanent cadre.
2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s decision was correct and should not have been interfered with by the High Court.
3. Whether the settlement agreement dated 21.12.1989 was binding on the parties and should be interpreted as per its plain language.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court held that the settlement agreement was binding on both parties in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also noted that the concept of “Badli Kamdar” is statutorily recognized under the Act. However, the Court did not find any merit in the reliance placed by the appellants on previous judicial orders. The court stated that these orders turned on the facts involved in those cases and did not directly deal with the issues in the present appeals.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the plain language of Clause 20 of the settlement agreement. The Court emphasized that the settlement was binding on both parties and that the employees had not challenged its validity. The Court also noted that the “Badli Kamdars” were given the benefit of absorption into the permanent cadre because of their status as “Badli Kamdars” and were given the time scale benefits as per the settlement.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects of the case (30%). The primary focus was on the interpretation and application of the settlement agreement and relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the plain language of Clause 20 of the settlement agreement and interpreted it to mean that the 180 days of service should be counted from the date of absorption into the permanent cadre. The Court rejected the appellants’ claim for benefits from the initial date of joining as “Badli Kamdar” and upheld the GSRTC’s stance on benefits from the date of absorption.

The Court rejected any alternative interpretations as the plain reading of the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous.

The Court held that there was no basis for the appellants to claim the benefits from the date of their initial appointment as “Badali Kamdar”. The Court noted that the appellants were unable to show any document, such as any term/condition in the appointment letter or in the settlement or any Rule/Regulation framed by the Corporation recognizing such right in appellants’ favour to enable them to claim such benefit from the date of their initial appointment.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“One cannot dispute the legal proposition that the settlement once arrived at between the employer and the employees as provided in Section 18 of the Act, it is binding on the employer and the employees.”

“It is not in dispute that the Corporation has followed the procedure provided in clause 20 while granting the employees their permanent cadre and the time scale of conductor.”

“In our considered opinion, in the light of what we have held above, there is no basis for the appellants (employees) to claim the aforesaid benefit from the date of their initial appointment as “Badali Kamdar”. Indeed, there is neither any factual foundation nor any legal foundation to claim such benefit.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment clarifies that “Badli Kamdars” are entitled to permanent absorption and time-scale benefits from the date of their actual absorption into a permanent position, not from their initial date of joining as daily wagers.
• Settlement agreements between employers and employees are binding and must be interpreted as per their plain language.
• Previous judicial orders in similar cases may not be applicable if the factual matrix is different.
• This judgment will likely impact future cases involving similar disputes over the rights and benefits of daily wage workers in the GSRTC and other similar organizations.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that “Badli Kamdars” are entitled to permanent absorption and time-scale benefits from the date of their actual absorption into a permanent position, not from their initial date of joining as daily wagers. This judgment does not appear to change any previous position of law but clarifies the interpretation of settlement agreements in the context of daily wage workers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the “Badli Kamdars,” upholding the High Court’s decision that their permanent status and time-scale benefits should be calculated from the date of their absorption into the permanent cadre, not from their initial date of joining as daily wagers. The Court emphasized the binding nature of the settlement agreement between the GSRTC and its employees’ union and interpreted Clause 20 of the agreement to mean that the 180 days of service should be counted from the date of absorption into the permanent cadre. This judgment reinforces the importance of settlement agreements and their interpretation in resolving disputes between employers and employees.