http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1046 of 2007

PETITIONER: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp

RESPONDENT: Premlal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2007

BENCH: S. H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24066 of 2003) WITH C.A. 1047       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2533 of 2004 C.A. 1064       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2551 of 2004 C.A. 1074       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.7219 of 2005 C.A. 1048       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2548 of 2004 C.A. 1049       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2656 of 2004 C.A. 1050       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2652 of 2004 C.A. 1051       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2547 of 2004 C.A. 1052       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2552 of 2004 C.A. 1053       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2650 of 2004 C.A. 1054       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2542 of 2004 C.A. 1056       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2539 of 2004  C.A. 1057       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2658 of 2004 C.A. 1058       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2648 of 2004 C.A. 1059       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2544 of 2004 C.A. 1060       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2543 of 2004 C.A. 1062       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2536 of 2004 C.A. 1063       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2565 of 2004 C.A. 1065       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2653 of 2004 C.A. 1067       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2546 of 2004 C.A. 1068       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2654 of 2004 C.A. 1069       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2646 of 2004 C.A. 1070       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2541 of 2004 C.A. 1055       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2647 of 2004 C.A. 1071       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.4390 of 2004 C.A. 1072       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.5632 of 2005 C.A. 1073       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6093 of 2005 C.A. 1061       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2538 of 2004 C.A. 1066       of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.2645 of 2004

KAPADIA, J.

               Leave granted.         A short question which arises for determination in  these civil appeals filed by the employer is : whether  Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood replaced by Clause  19 of 1985 Settlement and by Resolution No.8856 dated  31.8.78 passed by the appellant-Corporation.

       Appellant-Corporation is a State Road Transport  Undertaking incorporated under Road Transport  Corporation Act, 1950.  Apart from State Transport  Employees Service Regulations framed under Section 45  of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the service  conditions of the employees are also regulated by  Industrial Settlement signed between the Corporation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

and various trade Unions representing employees.   Several demands were raised in 1956 on behalf of the  workmen.  One such demand was under Item No.49 of  the Demand Notice for abolition of Daily Wage System.  It  appears that large number of workmen were continued  for several years in the Corporation on ad-hoc basis.   They were paid daily-wages.  Therefore, there were  unwarranted interruptions and breaks in their service  which ultimately resulted in Unions’ raising the above  demand.  Under 1956 Settlement all employees working  for 180 days including weekly offs and other holidays  continuously, were to be brought on the time scale of pay  and they were to be given all the benefits available to the  time scale workers.  This Settlement was arrived at on  25.4.56.  Even after 1956 various settlements were  arrived at between the Corporation and its employees.   According to the appellant, Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement  was cancelled and revised in the Joint Committee  Meeting held on 15.4.1978.  According to the  Corporation, the Joint Committee was empowered to do  so by virtue of Clause 9 of 1968 Settlement.  According to  the appellant-Corporation, in any event the decision of  the Joint Committee dated 15.4.78 stood approved by  Resolution No.8856 of the Corporation dated 31.8.1978  under which persons in employment of daily-wages as on  31.7.78 and those who were to be employed on daily- wages thereafter were to be appointed on temporary basis  in ephemeral vacancies in time scale of pay as from  31.7.78 or thereafter provided they completed aggregate  service of 180 days in any one financial year commencing  from 1.4.73 onwards.  According to the appellant- Corporation, in 1985 a new settlement was arrived at  under which absorption of daily rated workmen after  completion of 180 days continuous service vide Clause  19 stood included.  According to the appellant- Corporation, Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood  superseded by Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement.  On behalf  of the workmen the argument put forward was that  Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and Clause 19 of 1985  Settlement operated in different fields and, therefore,  there was no question of Clause 49 of 1956 being  superseded by Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement.  It was also  submitted that Joint Committee was not authorized to  cancel and revise Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement.  It was  submitted that Joint Committee was constituted to  implement Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and not to  cancel or revise the said clause and, therefore, the  Corporation was not entitled to replace Clause 49 of 1956  by Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement.

       The basic controversy in the present matter,  therefore, is the true scope and extent of the above two  Clauses, namely, Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and  Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement.

       Before examining the above two Clauses it may be  mentioned that in the present case we are concerned  with employees who have been appointed after 31.8.78.   This aspect is important because one of the argument  advanced on behalf of the Corporation is that Clause 49  of 1956 stood deleted on 15.4.78 pursuant to the  decision of the Joint Committee which decision was  approved by the Corporation vide Resolution No.8856  dated 31.8.78 and, therefore, in any event Clause 49 of  1956 did not operate after 15.4.78.  On the other hand,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

the workmen contended that even assuming for the sake  of argument that the Joint Committee had the authority  to revise Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement even then when  the Joint Committee cancelled Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement the said clause was replaced by a new clause,  accepted by the Corporation under Resolution No.8856,  under which it was agreed that persons in employment,  casual or on daily-wages, as on the date of the said  Resolution, shall be appointed temporarily in ephemeral  vacancies in time scale of pay with effect from the date of  the Resolution or from the date of their completion of 180  days aggregate service in a financial year; they shall be  entitled to the benefits admissible to regular employees  on time scale of pay provided they satisfy the conditions  prescribed for their entitlement.

       As stated above the basic controversy in the present  civil appeals is : whether Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement  stood superseded by Clause 19 of 1985 settlement and  whether in any event Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood  terminated vide Resolution No.8856 of the Corporation  dated 31.8.78.  At this stage, it may be noted that the  controversy arose because a complaint was filed before  the Industrial Court at Nagpur Bench in Complaint  (ULPN) No.8 of 1992 by one of the employees of the  Corporation stating that he was appointed as a daily  rated workman on 11.2.88 at the rate of Rs.11.76 per  day; that he has been continuously working with the  Corporation without any break; that though he was  working as a regular employee he was paid wages which  had no parity with regular employee; that he was not  made permanent in order to deprive him all the benefits  of permanency and that he was entitled to be appointed  on time scale of pay on completion of 180 days of  continuous service in terms of Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement.  In the said complaint after noting the  aforestated submissions advanced on behalf of the  Corporation, the Industrial Court held, that, as per  Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement the workman who was a  daily rated workman had put continuous service of 180  days and, therefore, in terms of Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement the complainant was entitled to be appointed  on time scale of pay and he was also entitled for all the  benefits available to the time scale worker.  The  Industrial Court gave a declaration vide order dated  27.2.97 that the Corporation had engaged in unfair  labour practice under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of MRTU  and PULP Act 1971 by not brining the complainant on  time scale of pay in terms of Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement.  By the said order the Corporation was  directed to fix the pay of the complainant in the time  scale not from the date of appointment but from 6.1.92  (the date on which the complaint was filed).

       In order to resolve the dispute we quote hereinbelow  Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement, Resolution No.8856 of the  Corporation dated 31.8.78 and clause 19 of 1985  Settlement: "Clause 49 of the 1956 Settlement -   49.  All employees working for 180 days  including weekly off and other holidays  continuously will be brought on the time scale  of pay and will get all the benefits available to  time scale workers.  Any absence on account  of authorized leave will not be treated as break

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

for the above purpose and will not also count  for service.

Resolution No.8856 dated 31.8.1978 \026  Item No.17:

Absorption on time scale of employees  working on daily-wages from 1st April 1973  onwards.

Item No.18:

Working hours and wage structure of  daily rated employees. (Items 17 and 18 were considered together).

Resolution 8856:

I.  Item 17 (regarding absorption on time  scale of employees working on daily-wages  from 1st Aril 1973 onwards) and item 18  (regarding giving retrospective effect from 1st  January 1977 to the decision of the Joint  committee regarding the revision of the daily  rate of wages taken at its meeting held on 5th  August 1978) being disagreed items of the  Joint Committee, the Corporation gave a  personal hearing to Sarvashri Bhau Phatak,  Bhingardeve and Choube, General Secretaries  the Maharashtra S.T. Kamgar Sanghatana,  Maharashtra S.T. Workers’ Federation and  Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Federation,  respectively, in these matters.  They explained  in regard to item No.17 that the persons  working on daily-wages are denied certain  essential and reasonable facilities provided to  the employees on time scale and it was  necessary to do justice to them.

II-A.  Thereafter the Corporation  considered the two demands and decided as  under:-

(1)  The present Clause No.49 in the  Settlement dated 28th May 1956 shall  stand cancelled.

(2)  The persons in employment  casually or on daily-wages as on the date  of this Resolution as also those who may  this be employed thereafter shall, if they  have already completed or will complete  an aggregate service of 180 days in any  one financial year commencing from 1st  April 1973, be appointed temporarily in  ephemeral vacancies in time scale of pay  of the post in which they were appointed  with effect from the date of this  Resolution or from the date of their  completion of 180 days aggregate service  in a financial year as the case may be,  and shall also be entitled from the  relevant date to the following benefits  admissible to regular employees on time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

scale of pay provided they satisfy all the  conditions prescribed for their  entitlement:-

(i)     uniforms, (ii)    washing allowances, (iii)   medical facilities, (iv)    family free pass, and (v)     periodical increments.

(3)  The Corporation made it clear  that the absorption of such persons who  are granted the above benefits, in regular  vacancies will be strictly according to  their turn and will be subject to the  normal rules and orders in this respect.

(The above decision being in modification of  the settlement would need the approval of  Government).

II.B.  The Corporation directed that the  pros and cons of the question of paying the  persons engaged on work-charged  establishment/nominal muster roll according  to the time scale rate of pay and extending the  other benefits (as mentioned in II.A(2)) to them  should be examined with reference to the  working conditions, existing rate of payment,  etc. and a detailed note in the matter should  be submitted to the Corporation, preferably at  its next meeting.

III.  The revised rate of daily-wages as  worked out on the basis of 24 working days  should be given effect to from 1st January 1977  i.e. the date from while the Second and the  Fourth Saturdays in a month were observed as  non-working days for the employees in the  Central Office and the Regional Offices.

Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement  \026  

19.  Absorption of day-rated working after  completed service of 180 days -  

(i)  The absorption of such workmen be made  as at present, i.e., subject their selection at  least once by competent selection committee  and availability of clear vacancies;

(ii)  As far as possible no appointment except  in the category of driver will be made in future  without selection of a workmen by the  Committee.

(iii)  All past cases of daily wagers who are  eligible for absorption will be reviewed on the  merits of each individual case and as per the  laws on the subject.

(iv)  As regards surplus staff viz., Watchmen,  the information will be called for from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

divisions and the cases after examination will  be put up to the Corporation Board for its  directives."    

According to the impugned judgment Clause 49 of  1956 Settlement and Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement  operated in different fields and consequently Clause 19 of  1985 Settlement did not supersede Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement.  Broadly, we agree with the decision of the  High Court.  In our view, there is a difference between the  status of an employee on one hand and the benefits  accruing to the workmen on the other hand.  As stated  above, in 1956 the Union presented to the Corporation  various demands.  One of the demands was abolition of  the daily-wage system. Under Clause 49 of 1956 the  Corporation agreed to give to the workmen all the  benefits available to a time scale worker.  On the other  hand, under Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement, subject to a  worker fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the Corporation  agreed to absorb daily rated workmen who completed  180 days of service.  Therefore, the High Court was right  in holding that the above two Clauses operated in  different fields and, therefore, there was no question of  Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement superseding Clause 49 of  1956 Settlement.  Under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement,  the Corporation agreed to provide benefits to employees  working for 180 days continuously to be given all benefits  available to time scale workers.   The grievance of the workmen in the present case is  that till today the Corporation has not given to them the  benefits available to time scale workers.  In the present  case, they are not seeking absorption.  In the present  case, they are seeking wages payable to time scale  workers.  The topic of absorption is covered by Clause 19  of 1985 Settlement.  It states that in all past cases all  daily wagers who are eligible for absorption will be given  absorption subject to their selection by the competent  Select Committee and subject to existence of clear  vacancies.  This aspect was not there in Clause 49 of  1956 Settlement.  Therefore, the High Court was right in  holding that the two clauses operated in different fields.   We agree with this conclusion of the High Court in the  impugned judgment.  In the circumstances, in the  present case we are not required to examine the  authority of the Joint Committee to cancel Clause 49 of  1956 Settlement.  In the circumstances, in the present  case we are not required to examine the question as to  whether the workmen herein are entitled to be absorbed  under Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement.  These two aspects  shall be a matter of separate adjudication.  We do not  wish to go into these aspects.  Suffice it to state that  Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement and Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement operate in different fields and, therefore, there  is no question of Clause 19 of 1985 superseding Clause  49 of 1956 Settlement.

However, as stated above, we are required also to  consider the effect of Resolution no.8856 dated 31.8.78  passed by the Corporation under which Clause 49 of  1956 Settlement stood cancelled. It is true that the Union  had agreed to the cancellation of Clause 49.  However,  the Union had also placed their demand for substitution  of Clause 49 and the Corporation agreed to that  substitution vide Resolution No.8856 passed by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

Corporation under which persons in employment  casually or on daily-wages as on the date of the  Resolution as also those who were to be employed  thereafter, were entitled to be appointed temporarily in  ephemeral vacancies in the time scale of pay on  completion of 180 days aggregate service in a financial  year.  Under the said Resolution they were entitled to the  benefits admissible to regular employees on time scale of  pay subject to their satisfying the conditions prescribed  for the entitlement.  As stated above, in the present case  the workmen are not seeking absorption.  They are  seeking benefits admissible to regular employees on time  scale of pay.  In the present case, the workmen seek  benefits admissible to those employees on time scale of  pay.  In the present case, the respondent-workmen are in  service after 31.8.78.  In the circumstances,  notwithstanding cancellation of Clause 49 of 1956  Settlement the workmen herein would be entitled to all  benefits admissible to regular employees working in the  Corporation on time scale of pay provided they satisfy the  eligibility criteria of having worked for aggregate service  of 180 days and subject to their satisfying all the  conditions prescribed for their entitlement in terms of the  above Resolution No.8856 read with Clause 19 of 1985  Settlement.   In the present case, as stated above, the workmen are  not seeking absorption.  The workmen have reserved their  rights to seek adjudication in that regard in a separate forum.   Similarly, in the present case, we are not required to go into  the question of validity of Resolution No.8856 dated 31.8.78  since in our view Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and Clause 19  of 1985 operated in two different fields.  The question of  validity of Resolution No.8856 is a matter of separate  challenge before a different forum.  We express no opinion in  that regard.  In the present case, we are also not required to  quantify the liability of the Corporation.  We are deciding this  matter only on interpretation of above two Clauses. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Corporation are  dismissed with no order as to costs.