http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1404 of 2008

PETITIONER: Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited & Ors

RESPONDENT: Jayant & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/2008

BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20591/2007 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.1405 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20595/2007

       Leave granted.         These Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6th July, 2007 passed  by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petitions Nos.2103/2003 and  2190/2003.         The appellant Company is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited.           The challenge before the High Court in the above writ petitions filed by Koyala  Udyog Kamgar Sanghathan was to the action of the Management in effecting  recovery of HRA allegedly paid in excess to non-executive employees stationed at  Nagpur (A Class).  The said recovery was made by  the  Management  purportedly   on the ground that revised                                                           ...2/-

-2- formula for payment of HRA in terms of Wage Agreement No.VI stood  implemented with effect from 1.7.1999 and not from 1.7.1996 as contended by the  Sangathan.  It is contended by the Management that except the member-employees  of the Sangathan, all other Unions in other regions understood the payability of  HRA with effect from 1.7.1999.  This contention of the Management for recovering  the so-called excess amount was not accepted by the High Court in its impugned  judgment.  Hence these Civil Appeals.         We are confining our order expressly to the facts of this case.  On facts of this  case, we are of the view that this is a harsh case as not only the amount of  Rs.9,56,036/- was paid to the employees but even tax was paid by the workers  thereon.  Further on reading Annexure C1 dated 23.5.2002, it is clear that CFO had  acted on some communications from the Central Office which were capable of two  interpretations.  The instructions to CFO were not clear for which no fault lay at the  doorsteps of the member-employees of the Sangathan.         We are informed that on question of interpretation of the Wage Agreements Nos.  V and VI and on above Instructions issued by the Standardization Committee, writ  petitions have been filed by other Unions which are pending before the Kolkata  High Court.                                                             ..3/-

-3-

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

       Treating this case as a stand-alone case and without expressing any opinion on  the interpretation of the Wage Agreements Nos.V and VI and the above  Instructions, we direct the Management to pay to the Respondent-Sangathan  herein/its member-employees the said sum of Rs.9,56,036/- within eight weeks.   Arguments on both sides are kept open.  Our present order will not be cited as a  precedent in the pending or future proceedings adopted/to be adopted by other  Unions which will be decided on their own merits uninfluenced by the observations  made in the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court.  Before concluding, we  clarify that the said amount of Rs.9,56,036/- will be paid without interest.         These Civil Appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to cost.