The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice. The court rejected the petitioner's claim regarding independent wage determination, holding the employer failed to prove the wage difference was based on merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp 8419-2019.doc
sat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8419 OF 2019
M/s.Shree Stampings
...Petitioner
vs.
Mr.Ramesh Gangaram Kamble
...Respondent
Mr.K.S. Bapat i/b. Desai & Desai Associates for Petitioner.
Ms.Bhavana H. Mhatre for Respondent.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2020
P.C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner is
permitted to amend the petition by correcting the name of the Respondent.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.
2This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial
Court at Pune on a complaint of unfair labour practice. The unfair labour
practice originally alleged by the complainant (the Respondent herein) was
breach of a settlement. The complaint was accordingly under Item 9 of
Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (‘Act’). During the pendency of
the complaint, the complainant amended his plaint and alleged
discrimination in the matter of revision of pay, alleging thereby an unfair
labour practice under Item 5 on the part of the employer. The complainant,
in particular, pointed out that employees working on the same posts and
performing the same duties, were paid better wages by giving them higher
revisions than the complainant. He also gave a concreteexampleof one
particular employee by producing documents on record. The Industrial
Court, in its impugned order, considered the complainant’s prayers in the
1 / 3
wp 8419-2019.doc
sat
light of the material placed before it by the parties. The allegation of the
complainant that the Respondent employer had discriminated against him
in the matter of wage revision was supported by documents at Exhibits U-
31, U-32 and U-33. The documents showed that the complainant and one
S.D. Sarode, who were working in similar posts as Production Operators,
were paid different basic wages. Whereas the basic wage of the
complainant, who was employed, in fact, prior to Sarode, was Rs.97-68,
the basis wage of Sarode was Rs.234-32. The total wage packages,
considering their basic wages and allowances, worked out differently in
case of the two, the complainant getting much lesser pay than Sarode.
The court proceeded on the footing that the evidence on record did show
that there was discrimination on the part of the Respondent in respect of
employees working in the same posts; the wages of these employees were
different. The court was of the view that discrimination having, thus, been
proved by the complainant through documentary evidence, the unfair
labour practice engaged in by the Respondent was proved. The court
observed that there should not be two sets of conditions for workers
performing the same duties and that, in the premises, the complainant was
entitled to a declaration under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act.
3No infirmity can be found with the impugned order of the
Industrial Court. The order is supported by evidence on record. The order
takes into account all relevant and germane facts and materials and does
not consider any irrelevant or non-germane material or circumstance.
4Mr.Bapat, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submits that the employer is within his rights to pay different wages to his
workers. Learned Counsel submits that wage rise in case of employees
2 / 3
wp 8419-2019.doc
sat
would depend on various factors like targets, performance, productivity,
discipline, skills set, commitment, etc. Learned Counsel submits that
depending on the skill sets and commitments of the parties, individual
wage rise would be given. Learned Counsel submits that individual wage
rise such as this can be a subject matter of an industrial dispute, but not of
a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Act. Learned Counsel is not
right there. Generally speaking, it may be that wages or wage revisions
may be subject to these different factors, but that is not the case of the
employer in the present case. The purported difference in the wages of the
two employees was not explained by the employer before the trial court on
the basis of any of these factors. It is no good to now claim before the writ
court, in a judicial scrutiny of the trial court order, by way of a general
assertion, that wages could be different depending on difference in
performance or other factors; it was for the employer to satisfy the court
that the difference in wage revision in the particular case of the
complainant and Sarode was not due to discrimination of the complainant,
but on account of merits of Sarode based on his performance or other
factors. Absent any of these circumstances, no fault can be found with the
Industrial Court blaming the difference in pay revision in the cases of two
different employees working in the same post on discrimination.
5Mr.Bapat submits that the Respondent was not diligent in even
attendance. No such case was made out before the Industrial Court and no
such case can now be urged before this court.
6Accordingly, there is no merit in the challenge. The writ
petition is dismissed.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.)
Digitally signed Sanskruti by Sanskruti A.Thakur A. Date: Thakur 2020.03.1203:18:02 +0530
3 / 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was no infirmity in the impugned order of the Industrial Court finding unfair labour practice on account of wage discrimination.
Whether the employer had satisfied the requirement to prove differential wage revision was based on merits rather than discrimination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Shree Stampings
Mr. Ramesh Gangaram Kamble
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court