The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order granting HMV drivers equal benefits to staff drivers, finding no infirmity in the decision despite the petitioner's claim of disparity.
Writ Petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to settle arrears within twelve weeks.
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.No.10168 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P. No.10168 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.1/2013 & 1/2014
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, 5/63, Omalur Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem-2.
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, I Floor 'B' wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006.
2.The General Secretary, Salem, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode Mavatta Pokuvarathu Matrum Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam 21, Vivekananada Street, Salem-636 007. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.22 of 2009 on the file of Central Government Industrial TribunalCum-Labour Court, I Floor 'B' wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
1/8
WP.No.10168 of 2013
Chennai-600 006, the first respondent herein, quash the award dated 09.08.2012 passed therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Raghavan For R2 : Ms.H.Nandhini for Mr.R.Krishnasamy
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 09.08.2012 passed in I.D.No.22 of 2009 by the first respondent, thereby ordered that the HMV drivers shall be given salary and other benefits on par with LMV drivers from the date of taking over of the company by the
Government of Tamil Nadu but the payment of arrears is restricted from the date of reference.
the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
initially owned by a company called Salem Magnesite Private Ltd and carried out the mining operations on the basis of lease granted by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. However, the said lease was not extended in 2/8
WP.No.10168 of 2013
the year 1979 and the mining operations were taken over by the petitioner. All the employees were also absorbed by the petitioner. The Salem Magnesite Private Ltd., had two categories of drivers viz., those working in mines and those working in the office. The drivers working in the mines belonged to the workmen category and driver working in the office belonged to the staff category. The drivers in the workmen category were receiving wages on the basis of wage settlement entered into between the various unions and the management under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. They were also receiving package which were periodically revised by virtue of various settlements. The settlements provided not only the wage component but also various benefits comprehensively.
WP.No.10168 of 2013
Notification by the Government. The nature of work in so far as the drivers of both categories would not be same. The staff category drivers have to work beyond any fixed hours without any overtime wages. They are not having the benefits given to the workmen drivers under the settlement.
WP.No.10168 of 2013
and the employer petitioner under Section 123 of the Industrial Dispute Act and also salary slips of the workmen as well as the staff drivers. Though the workmen received salary as per their settlement entered from time to time, they were not paid salary and par with the LMV Drivers. The workmen drivers are employed in mining operation , though they are the backbone of the establishment, their scales of pay and other benefits are less compared to staff drivers. It is totally unjustified for the one and the same categories of employees, whose case is espoused herein.
WP.No.10168 of 2013
actually deprived of equal treatment and benefits. It is also opposed to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and opposed to the provisions of Equal Remuneration Act and Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
the employer had entered into settlement from time to time, the workmen drivers are getting low salary than the LMV drivers. Therefore, the first respondent rightly ordered that the HMV drivers shall be given other benefits on par with LMV drivers. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Award dated 09.08.2012 passed in I.D.No.22 of 2009 by the first respondent and the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
WP.No.10168 of 2013
petitioner is directed to settle all the arrears if any to the second respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
27.07.2023
Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, I Floor 'B' wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
7/8
WP.No.10168 of 2013
Lpp
W.P. No.10168 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1/2013 & 1/2014
27.07.2023
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal violated Articles 14 and 39(d) by equating HMV drivers with staff drivers.
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering settlement documents and salary disparities.
Whether the award granting equal benefits to HMV and staff drivers was legally unsustainable.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court
The General Secretary, Salem, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode Mavatta Pokuvarathu Matrum Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
