Partly allowed

Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust

Bombay HC5 Sept 2014WP/1004/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Union challenged an Industrial Tribunal award denying differential wages to General Purpose Mazdoors working as a compact gang discharging Senior Worker duties. The High Court set aside the denial, ruling that MOA and Manning Scales do not bar equal pay for equal work, but upheld wage deductions during a refusal to work.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award partially set aside; MPT directed to pay differential wages for compact gang deployments since 1994; refusal to work wages upheld.

Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs Mumbai… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dss

¶2

wp-1004-07

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1004 OF 2007

¶4

Transport & Dock Workers Union

..Petitioner

versus

Mumbai Port Trust

..Respondent

Mr.S.N. Deshpande a/w. Ms N.S. Deshpande & Mrs. S.P. Munshi for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. R.S. Pail a/w. Mr. Anand Pai and Ms Kavita Sachin i/b. M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. Judgment reserved on : 7 August 2014 Judgment pronounced on : 5 September 2014.

¶12

JUDGMENT :-

¶13

1] The Transport & Dock Workers Union (Union) questions the award dated 8 November 2005 (impugned award) made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). By the impugned award, the CGIT has :

¶14

(i) denied the General Purpose Mazdoors (GPMs) differential wages, when they discharge the duties of Stevedore workmen (SW) ' as a compact gang' ;

¶15

(ii) upheld the action of Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) of deduction of 20 days wages for the period between 1 August 1998 to 20 August 1998, during which period the GPMs refused to discharge duties of SW, as their demand for differential wages was not being favorably considered by the MPT.

1/17

dss

wp-1004-07

2] The GPMs were initially employees of Bombay Dock Labour Board (BDLB). However, with effect from 1 April 1994, GPMs were absorbed and became employees of the MPT. About 640 GPMs, upon absorption were promoted by MPT to the category of SW, as there was a shortage in the said category. Despite such promotions, shortage continued and on several occasions, the GPMs either individually or as compact gangs were deployed to discharge the duties of SW. Whenever GPMs were individually deployed to discharge the duties of SW, MPT would pay them differential wages, so that the total wages drawn by them were at par with the wages paid to SW. However, whenever GPMs as a compact gangs were deployed to discharge the duties of SW, the MPT relying upon Memorandum of Agreement dated 13 December 1991 (MOA) and the Manning Scales approved by the BDLB in its meeting held on 9 December 1986 (Manning Scales) would deny such differential wages to the GPMs.

¶20

3] The GPMs, through their Union, therefore, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the appropriate Government to CGIT vide Reference No.CGIT-12 of 2001. The term of reference read as follows:

¶21

“Whether the action of the Management of MBPT in deducting 20 days wages from 1.8.1998 to 20.8.1998 of General Purpose Mazadoors (GPMs) and not paying the difference of wages from 1.3.1994 for having deployed in place of Sr. Workers is legal and Justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

¶22

4] The respective parties filed their pleadings before the CGIT and the following issues came to be cast on 28 October 2002.

¶23

“(a) Whether the Mumbai Port Trust had paid the differential wages for taking the work of senior workers (i.e. Stevedore workers like Winch Drivers, Hatch Foreman and Tindels) from General Purpose Mazadoors from 1.3.1994 as and when the work was taken from them ?

2/17

dss

wp-1004-07

(b) Whether the Mumbai Port Trust authorized to deduct wages of 20 days for the period of 1.8.1998 to 20.8.1998 ?

¶28

(c) What relief, if any, can be granted to workmen ?”

¶29

5] Thereafter the evidence was led by Mr. S.K. Yadav, Joint Secretary of the Union and Mr. R.S. Ghadwale, Assistant Manager, Traffic Department, on behalf of the MPT.

¶30

6] The CGIT, by the impugned award made has held that there was some justification in the demand of Union, but relying upon MOA and Manning Scales ruled that the Union was barred from raising the claim. Consequently, no relief whatsoever was granted to the GPMs. Hence, the present petition.

¶31

7] Mr. S.N. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner-Union, submitted that the MPT has been paying the GPMs, differential wages, as and when they individually discharge the duties of SW. However, when GPMs, as a compact gang, discharge the very same duties of SW, the differential wages are being arbitrarily denied. There is absolutely nothing either in the MOA or in the Manning Scales, which either permits or authorises such discriminatory treatment. Further, between the period from 1 August 1998 and 20 August 1998, the GPMs had duly reported for work when deployed to discharge the duties of SW, but the MPT declined payment of differential wages, despite oral assurances in this regard. Therefore, applying the ratio of decision in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman - AIR 1991 SC 2010, the principle of ' no work no pay was inapplicable and the CGIT ought to have directed the payment of withheld wages for the said period.

3/17

dss

wp-1004-07

8] Mr. R.S. Pai, learned counsel for MPT, however, submitted that the MOA and the Manning Scales afford complete immunity to the action of MPT and consequently no interference is warranted with the impugned award. Mr. Pai further submitted that in the last few years, there is hardly any work for the GPMs and therefore no useful purpose would be served in the GPMs persisting with their demands.

¶36

9] The rival contentions, now fall for my determination.

¶37

10] The Union, examined Mr. S.K. Yadav, its Joint Secretary who effectively reiterated the Union's case as pleaded in the claim statement and rejoinder. Mr. Yadav deposed that the Union consented to arrangement of deployment of GPMs as SW, as the exigencies of work would demand, as there was always shortage of SWs. The MPT, would invariably pay differential wages to the GPMs, when individually deployed to discharge the duties of SW. However, without rationale or valid reason, the MPT declined payment of differential wages to GPMs, when deployed as a compact gang to discharge the duties of SWs. The Union therefore, was constrained to agitate against such discrimination. The agitation was withdrawn on the assurance of MPT that such discrimination shall cease and even the arrears of differential wages, which had mounted since 1 April 1994 would be cleared. The MPT, however, reneged upon its assurances and therefore, between period 1 August 1998 and 20 August 1998, the GPMs, presented themselves for duties, but declined to actually discharge the duties until arrears of differential wages were cleared. The MPT, by way of retaliation in an arbitrary and high handed manner, deducted wages for the period of 20 days. In the cross-examination, Mr. Yadav admitted that duty list and Manning Scales had been provided by BDLB. Mr. Yadav also admitted that the MOA was entered into between

4/17

dss

wp-1004-07

several Unions and the MPT, under which it was agreed that GPMs would discharge the duties of SW, as and when there was any shortage of SWs. Mr. Yadav also deposed that whenever GPMs were individually deputed to discharge the duties of SW, differential wages were paid to them, but stated that whenever GPMs were deployed as a compact gangs to discharge the very same duties of SW, such differential wages were denied to them.

¶42

11] Mr. R.S. Ghadwale, Assistant Manager, Traffic Department, who deposed on behalf of MPT stated that a duty list and Manning Scales for GPMs approved by BDLB in its meeting held on 9 December 1986 continued to operate even after absorption of GPMs into the employment of MPT. He confirmed the position that whenever GPMs were deployed to discharge the duties of SWs, by way of replacement, the GPMs were individually paid the differential wages. He however, stated that whenever GPMs were deployed to discharge the very same duties of SWs as compact gangs, no differential wages were paid. For this, Mr. Ghadwale placed reliance upon the Clauses 7 and 8 of the Manning Scales and the Clauses (ii) and (iii) of MOA. Mr. Ghadwale deposed that in the year 19901991, there was reduction in traffic at Mumbai Port as a result of which, several employees of BDLB would have been rendered redundant. The BDLB, was even unable to pay statutory dues in respect of its employees. Therefore, the petition was filed by the Unions before the High Court and in order to salvage the situation, MOA was entered into between various Unions, BDLB and MPT. In terms of Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the MOA, erstwhile BDLB workmen specifically agreed to discharge the duties allotted to them, irrespective of the schemes to which they earlier related. Thus, the MOA introduced interchangeability between workers belonging to different schemes. Further, Mr. Ghadwale made reference to the

5/17

dss

wp-1004-07

Manning Scales, including in particular Clauses 7 and 8 thereof and stated that whenever GPMs are deployed as a compact gangs to discharge the duties of SW, there was no obligation to pay differential wages.

¶47

12] In his cross-examination, Mr. Ghadwale stated that Steward Gang comprised of one Tandel and seven workers. If GPMs are deployed as replacement for SWs in such gangs, the GPMs are paid differential wages, so that there is parity maintained between such GPMs and SWs. However, when GPMs are deployed as compact gangs, no such differential wages are paid. Mr. Ghadwale admitted that no specific training is required for GPMs to work as SWs, either as individual replacement or in compact gangs. Mr. Ghadwale admitted that GPMs, when deployed as SWs, discharged the very works carried out ordinarily by the SW. Mr. Ghadwale denied that the GPMs refused to work for a period of 20 days because differential wages were assured to them but were not paid to them.

¶48

13] The CGIT in paragraphs 12,13 and 14 of the impugned award has recorded the following findings:

¶49

“12. On the basis of the evidence filed on record, this much is clear that the GPMs were deployed to work as Senior Workers as and when shortage of senior workers was there. The deployment had been sometimes by replacing one or two workers only and sometime as a Compact Gang which consisted of 1 +7 in accordance with the manning scale. It is also the admitted position that whenever the GPMs were being deployed as replace to cover up the shortage of one or two Stevedoring workers, the differential wages were paid by the management to the GPMs. The dispute which lies in between the workers and the management is with respect to non-payment of differential wages when the GPMs were being deployed to work as Senior workers as a Compact gang.

6/17

dss

wp-1004-07

13. The contention of the management appears to be right in view of the meetings with the Union from time to time. The relevant portions have already been quoted above. The manning scale is admittedly there. The duties of the GPMs at Serial No.8 clearly implies that the GPMs could be well asked to work as compact gang i.e., 1 + 7 for Stevedoring work. In this view of the matter the Union has no right to raise the objection of the Union appeared to be right if the legal position of “Equal Pay for Equal work” is kept in mind and that being so the management should pay the differential wages to the Compact gang as well and cannot escape the liability by saying that it would amount to promotion of the entire lot. But the agreement arrived at in between the Union and the management debars the Union from claiming the differential wages as a right if the GPMs are asked to work as a Compact gang for stevedoring work. Had there been no agreement in between the Union and Management for manning scale of duties etc. The union would have been right in claiming the differential wages. The management also realized the grievances of the workers and for this another meeting was held in 1998 and help the workers, it was agreed to form 80 Gangs. However, this formation of gang could not be materialized in view of stiff resistance by the erstwhile workers. The matter is still hanging on. It needs consideration for early solution of the problem on the part of the management. Till the solution is made, I feel the Union in the instant reference cannot claim as a of right the differential wages to the GPMs who were deployed to work for Stevedoring as a Compact gang.

¶54

14. Since the workers under the reference admittedly refused to work as senior workers for the period in question i.e., 01/8/1998 to 20/8/1998 their refusal cannot be said to be justifiable. No doubt, they were ready to perform the duties of GPMs but they were not deployed as such but they were asked to work for stevedoring to which the workers admittedly refused. Hence the management was right in deducting the wages. It may also be mentioned that some of the workers who opted for booking work were actually paid the wages. The ruling relied upon by the Union reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010 Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman does not help them on the facts and circumstances of the present case where the Supreme

7/17

dss

wp-1004-07

Court observed in the aforesaid ruling that normal rule of No work no pay is not applicable to the cases where the employee although willing to work was kept away from work by the Authority for no fault of his. Here, the workers refused to work for Stevedoring for which they had no right and in fact they were duly performing such duties from before. All of sudden they resorted to no work. It was their fault and hence they were rightly not paid the wages for the period in question.”

¶59

(emphasis supplied)

¶60

14] From the aforesaid, it is apparent that even the CGIT found justification in the demand of the Union and held that the Union would have been right in claiming the differential wages, had there not been any agreement between the Union and the MPT with regard to Manning Scales and duties. In my judgment, there is no basis for the apparent discrimination between class of GPMs, inter se, in the matter of payment of differential wages. The MPT has virtually conceded that it pays differential wages to GPM when they are individually deployed to discharge the duties of SW. However, when GPMs are deployed to discharge the duties of SWs as a compact gangs, differential wages are denied. Such denial, unless authorised by any binding rule or agreement, is clearly unsustainable. Since MPT and the CGIT have relied upon the MOA and the Manning Scales to justify such denial, it is necessary to closely examine the said two documents with a view to ascertain whether they permit or authorise the denial of differential wages.

¶61

15] The MOA was arrived at between the following parties:

¶62

(i) Government of India; (ii) Bombay Dock Labour Board; (iii) Bombay Stevedores Association; (iv) Transport and Dock Workers' Union;

8/17

dss

wp-1004-07

(v) Bombay Transport & Dock Workers' Union;

¶67

(vi) BPT Employee's Union; and

¶68

(viii) Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers' Union.

¶69

16] The preamble to MOA reads thus:

¶70

PREAMBLE:

¶71

On account of the bad financial situation of the Bombay Dock Labour Board, the workers covered under the schemes could not be paid the minimum guaranteed wages, and attendance allowance, whereupon the Transport and Dock Workers' Union and others and Bombay Transport & Dock Workers' Union filed two Petitions in the High Court of Judicature, Bombay. At the admission stage of the said Petition, the High Court opined that this matter should be resolved by mutual discussions between the parties, which included, Petitioners, BDLB, BPT and the Union of India. In obedience of the directive of the Honourable High Court, the Jt. Secretary (Ports) called a meeting at Delhi on 9.12.1991 which was attended to by all the concerned parties. TP BPT Employees' Union was also represented at the meeting in addition to the BSA.

¶72

In the said meeting, JS(P) had explained the Government's stand that basically it is essential to make all the schemes viable and this could be achieved only if certain conditions were met by the Unions and their Workers. In pursuance of the discussions, JS(P) handed over 8 Points which would cover all the aspects which were discussed and called upon the participating parties to respond with their own suggestions and objections, if any. The two Petitioners and Bombay stevedores Association Responded to the suggestions. JS(P) convened a meeting today the 13.12.1991 at Bombay at the BPT Board Room of all the concerned parties and after detailed discussion, a full consensus was arrived at is recorded hereinafter.

9/17

dss

wp-1004-07

17] Since both the MPT and the CGIT have made reference to Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the MOA, the same are extracted for convenience of reference:

¶77

“(ii) The workers agree to do work alloted to them by the Bombay Dock Labour Board and no distinction will be made of separate Schemes as existed hereinbefore. All Schemes other than “chipping and painting workers scheme” would be merged as one single scheme for cargo handling workers of Port and appropriate amendments would be made in the respective Schemes to ensure that the Schemes are merged into one. Chipping and Painting workers will be absorbed in the CME's Department of the Bombay Port Trust as and when the Scheme becomes viable. However, workers in higher grade would not be asked to carry out work done by lower grade workers except in cases where the workers are upgraded as per the agreement with the Unions. It is hereby understood clearly that there could be interchangeability between workers belonging to different Schemes such as clearing and forwarding, foodgrain, GPM and senior workers of Stevedoring Scheme etc.

¶78

(iii) Any labour which in the opinion of the Bombay Dock Labour Board is rendered surplus will be suitably redeployed after necessary training is given to them.”

¶79

18] Further, the MPT and CGIT have relied upon Clauses (7) and (8) of the Manning Scales, which were approved by the Board of BDLB in its meeting held on 9 December 1986. The same read thus:

¶80

“7. Whenever the work at a point is completed and/or otherwise the work on the vessel is completed the GPMs shall go over to any other point or vessel under the same registered employer. Whenever GPM gangs and complament thereto are booked for specific jobs as per manning scale, such workmen shall carry out any other work on the same basis of the manning scale in case the jobs for which they were booked originally cannot be carried out.

10/17

dss

wp-1004-07

8. GPMs shall carry out such other work as duly approved form time to time. Whenever it is found that BPT shed is either congested and/or otherwise difficulties are there for making the room for receipt of further cargo the GPMs on specific instructions being issued in this regard shall carry out such work and do everything with a view to cause room being created for receipt of such cargo.”

¶85

19] Clause (ii) of the MOA provides for merger of several schemes of BDLB, except chipping and painting workers scheme, into one single scheme for cargo handling workers. This Clause further provides that workers in higher grade would not be asked to carry out the work done by lower grade workers, except in cases where the workers are upgraded as per the agreement between the Unions. This Clause further provides that it is understood clearly that there could be interchangeability between workers belonging to different schemes such as clearing, forwarding, foodgrains, GPMs and senior workers of Stevedoring Scheme etc. Clause (iii) of the MOA provides that when any labour is rendered surplus, it will be suitably redeployed after impart of necessary training to them.

¶86

20] Mr. R.S. Pai, learned counsel for the MPT, emphasized that Clause (ii) of the MOA clearly permits ' interchangeability' between workmen. Therefore, consistent with Clause (iii), the MPT was well within its right in insisting that GPMs and senior workers of Stevedoring Schemes (SWs) be interchangeability deployed.

¶87

21] There is really no difficulty in matter of interchangeability. In fact, neither the Union nor GPMs whom it represents, have ever objected to this aspect of interchangeability and the consequent deployment of GPMs to discharge the duties of SWs. However, the moot question is whether there is anything contained in either Clauses (ii) or (iii) of the MOA which

11/17

dss

wp-1004-07

bars the GPMs or the Unions from demanding differential wages, particularly when they are called upon to discharge the duties of SWs as compact gangs. The MPT, itself pays differential wages to the GPMs, when they are individually deployed to discharge the duties of SWs. To such payment, even the MPT does not see or read any bar in Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the MOA. Therefore, it was for the MPT to offer some valid rationale or at least some clear and unambiguous provision on basis of which it can deny GPMs differential wages, when they discharge the duties of SWs as compact gangs. In deposition of Mr. Yadav on behalf of MPT, he has clearly admitted that the GPMs do not require any special training when they discharge the duties of SWs and that they discharge the very same duties as are discharged by SWs. At least Clauses (ii) and (iii) of MOA contain no provisions on basis of which the MPT can justify the denial of differential wages to the GPMs, as and when they discharge the duties of SWs as compact gangs. In fact, Clauses (ii) and (iii) do not deal with the aspect of differential wages at all. The Clauses, at the highest deal with interchangeability, which means that the GPMs cannot refuse to discharge the duties of SWs or other workmen, when required by the MPT to do so.

¶92

22] Clause (7) of the Manning Scales, merely provides that whenever the work at a point is completed and/or otherwise the work on the vessel is completed the GPMs shall go over to any other point and vessel under the same registered employer/vessel. Further whenever GPM gangs and complament thereto are booked for specific jobs as per Manning Scale, such workmen shall carry out any other work on the basis of the Manning Scale, in case the jobs for which they were booked originally cannot be carried out. This only means that where the jobs for which GPM gangs were originally booked cannot be carried out for some reason, GPM gangs

12/17

dss

wp-1004-07

shall carry out other works as may be assigned to them, without insisting upon any variations in the Manning Scales. The extract of minutes of meeting of the BDLB held on 9 December 1986 provides for Manning Scales for GPMs registered with the board. Manning Scale, have nothing to do with either pay scales or wages, but rather they prescribe the contingent or the composition of the Gang for the execution of specified works/duties. There is long list, which prescribes such Manning Scales, though by way of illustration, reference can be made to the following:

¶97

1.	Making room and high piling	:	1 +7 or more if required
2.	Shifting in the Shed/Hatch	:	1 +5 or more if required
3.	Cleaning of Wharg	:	1 + 5
4.	Hay loading	:	1 + 7
5.	_Discharging Hazardous cargo _ contaminated with foul smell and gas or in any manner hazardous to health from the vessel	:	1 + 7 with relief gang of 1 + 7 workers
6.	Handling Mail/Baggage	:	1 + 7
7.	Cleaning/laying dunnage	:	1 + 5
8.	In place of stevedore Gang	:	1 + 7
9.	In place of BPT Gangs	:	1 + 12
10.	Reefer Cargo on board the Vessel	:	1 + 7 with relief gang of _1 + 7 W_orkers

¶98

23] Similarly, Clause (8) of the Manning Scales provides that GPMs shall carry out such other work as may be duly approved from time to time, whenever it is found that BPT shed is either congested and/or there are other difficulties, particularly in the context of making the room for receipt of further cargo.

¶99

24] Again, there is nothing in Clauses (7) and (8) of the Manning Scale which even remotely deals with the entitlement of wages of GPMs, particularly when they are called upon to discharge the duties of SWs

13/17

dss

wp-1004-07

either individually or as compact gangs. All that Clauses (7) and (8) of the Manning Scales provide that the GPMs shall discharge duties, other than their normal duties, as and when called upon to do so, without insisting upon any changes in the Manning Scales. This does not mean that the GPMs or Union which represents them is not even entitled to claim wages commensurate with the duties discharged by them.

¶104

25] Therefore, in my judgment, there is absolutely nothing either in the MOA or Manning Scales, which defeats the claim of the GPMs to differential wages when they discharge the duties of SWs as compact gangs. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be recorded that the MPT itself pays differential wages to the GPMs, when they are individually deployed to discharge the duties of SWs. Further, there is no dispute whatsoever that GPMs do not require any special training to discharge the duties of SWs and that when deployed, the GPMs discharge the very same duties as are discharged by the SWs. In such circumstances, there is no justification to deny the GPMs differential wages as and when they are deployed to discharge the duties of SWs, as compact gangs. The CGIT, to the extent it has denied such relief to GPMs or the Union which it represents, has seriously erred. The CGIT has misread two vital documents, i.e., MOA and Manning Scales and proceeded on the incorrect premise that the same authorised denial of differential wages, when in fact there is absolutely nothing in the said two documents, which either authorises or permits such denial. The impugned award, is liable to be interfered with to the said extent.

¶105

26] In so far as denial of wages for a period of twenty days between the period 1 August 1998 to 20 August 1998 to GPMs is concerned, I see no reason to fault the decision of CGIT. Admittedly, during this period GPMs

14/17

dss

wp-1004-07

have not worked as SWs. There may be merit in the demand of the Union, however, that by itself did not entitle GPMs to unilaterally refuse to work for a period of 20 days, until and unless their demands for payment of differential wages were settled. Applying, therefore, the principles of no work and no pay, the CGIT was quite justified in declining GPMs wages during the period 1 August 1998 to 20 August 1998. Mr. Deshpande, however, contended that the ruling of Supreme Court in K.V. Janakiraman (supra), assists their case, inasmuch as it lays down that where the employees were ready and offer themselves for work, but such work was denied to them, the principle of ' no work no pay' is inapplicable. The facts and circumstances of the present case, however, do not assist, Mr. Deshpande. In the present case, GPMs did offer themselves for work, but insisted that they be paid the arrears of differential wages or at least differential wages, in case they are required to discharge the dues of SWs. Therefore, GPMs did not unconditionally offer themselves for work, rather their offer was hedged with conditions. In these circumstances, the dictum in the case of K.V. Janakiraman (supra) is clearly distinguishable and does not assist the Union.

¶110

27] In conclusion therefore, the impugned award is liable to be interfered with, to the extent it holds that GPMs are disentitled to claim differential wages, as and when they discharge the duties of SWs as a compact gang. However, the impugned award insofar as it denies GPMs wages for the period between 1 August 1998 to 20 August 1998, the same does not call for any interference.

¶111

28] Although there is no dispute that GPMs, right from 1 March 1994 have been deployed to discharge the duties of SWs from time to time, there is no material on record, as to which of the GPMs may have

15/17

dss

wp-1004-07

actually discharged such duties or the dates/period of such discharge. Obviously, such records would be available with the MPT, particularly since the MPT has accepted that GPMs were paid differential wages as and when individually deployed to discharge the duties of SWs. Therefore, exercise of computation of benefits in monetary terms shall have to be carried out by MPT itself and the corresponding amounts of differential wages shall have to be paid to the GPMs. The MPT is therefore, granted time limit of six months to carry out this exercise and effect payments to all the GPMs, who may have discharged the duties of SWs as compact gangs from 1 March 1994. However, should the MPT fail to undertake and complete such exercise within the period of six months or should there by any dispute between the parties in the matter of computation, then it shall be open to the Union or the GPMs to approach the CGIT to undertake such exercise by invoking its powers under Section 33 (C) (2) of the said Act or by any other mode as may be available under the law. Suffice, therefore, at this stage, to declare that action of MPT in denying GPMs differential wages from 1 March 1994, as and when such GPMs came to be deployed as SWs and discharged duties as SWs in compact gangs, is neither legal nor justified and that the GPMs are entitled to differential wages, including arrears of differential wages, as and when they may have been deployed or shall be deployed to discharge the duties of SWs, as compact gangs.

¶116

29] In the result, I pass the following order.

¶117

(a) The impugned award, to the extent it denies the GPMs, when working in compact gangs and discharging the duties of SWs, the differential wages from 1 March 1994, is set aside. It is declared that such denial, is neither legal nor justified ;

16/17

dss

wp-1004-07

(b) The respondent-MPT is, therefore, directed to pay to the GPMs from 1 March 1994 the differential wages (including all arrears) as and when such GPMs came to be deployed in compact gangs to discharge the duties of SWs, by computing the same, within a period of six months from today;

¶122

(c) In the event, the arrears are not paid within the aforesaid period of six months or should there be any dispute in the matter of computation and payment, the Union or the GPMs shall be at liberty to approach the CGIT under Section 33(C) (2) of the said Act or to resort to any other remedy available under the law for computation and enforcement;

¶123

(d) The impugned award, insofar as it denies GPMs wages for the period between 1 August 1998 to 20 August 1998, is not interfered with;

¶124

(e) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶125

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶126

dinesh

¶127

17/17

Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors. Vs the State of Maharatshta and Ors.

Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sajjad Kazi Vs Mr. Reshma Sajjad Kazi

Mr. Sajjad Kazi Vs Mr. Reshma Sajjad Kazi

Mangal Mohan Ray Vs M/S. Shirt Company (I) Ltd.