Calcutta High Court
Shri M. Chakraborty vs National Textile Corporation (West ... on 27 June, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1992)1CALLT112(HC)
JUDGMENT Padma Khastgir, J.
1. Being aggrieved by an order passed by a Learned Judge of this Court, the present appeal had been preferred.
2. The appellants contended that there had not been any wilful or contumacious violation of the order and/or direction given by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Banerjee on 21st of March, 1986. On the contrary there had been due compliance of the said order. In any event when two views can be taken regarding the scope and effect of the said order and if the view taken by the appellants was a possible and reasonable view then in that event there could be no question of disobedience of the said judgment and order dated 21st of March, 1986.
3. On 21st March, 1986, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the learned Judge in his judgment observed that inequality amongst the members of the staff as regards the employees of the registered office and the mills of the National Textile Corporation was the key point for consideration in the said writ petition. The writ petitioners in the said application contended that the discrimination was not only apparent but glaring inasmuch as there was desparity of pay scales for the persons discharged similar function. Whereas the respondents contended that although there was disparity in pay scale but that was permissible and/or justified on the ground that the principle of equal pay for equal work could not be the guiding factor in determining the pay scale between two sections of the respondents in view of the dissimilar services rendered by the employees concerned. Hence, the same could not be the guiding principle to achieve such goal. The learned Judge in the said order itself although observed that in a socialist state disparity of income among the same classes of employees cannot and should not be allowed to continue and classification, if any between the head office employees and the mill staffs was wholly misconceived but then again the learned Judge observed in the said order and/ or judgment that there could be no such classification between the employees who are employed in the mills and/or the head office when they are all employees of National Textile Corporation provided of course they are discharging similar responsibilities either at the mill or at the head office. In the said judgment there was no mandatory direction and/or order by the court below directing the respondents authority to remove the desparity on the contrary the court observed "though in the interest of justice a mandatory order probably would have served best but by reason of some procedural aspect the matter is sent back to the respondent authority for consideration of the matter with utmost expedition so as to amelurate the grievances of the petitioners in the light of the observation made herein".
4. Thereafter the respondents moved an application under the Contempt jurisdiction before the learned Judge alleging that there had been a violation of the direction given in the said order. The respondents contended that there were no similarities between the functions, duties and responsibilities of the staffs and sub-staffs of the head office with staffs and sub-staffs at the mill. Under the circumstances, if the company is required to bring about parity although the principle of equal pay for equal work has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same would involve as enormous heavy unusual financial burden which the company can hardly bear. The mills had been taken over as sick textile undertakings when their economic viability was totally lost. Apart from that it may affect other subsidiaries of the Corporation situated in different regions of the country having a wide repurcussion there. It was the respondents' case that the employees of the mill and those of the head office were not equally situate. Their duties, functions and responsibilities are totally dis-similar. The said two grounds do not belong to the same classes of employees, nor do they discharge identical functions. Hence, the question of inequality or discrimination between the two groups did not arise. The management after considering the pros and cons of the matter in the light of the judgment dated 21st March, 1987 were unable to concede to the demands of the writ petitioners. The learned Judge in the order itself directed the respondents to consider the matter. Hence, there could be no violation of the order passed by the learned Judge where alter taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent authority was of the view that in view of the disparity of the functions, duties and responsibilities of the two sets of employees at the head office and at the mill there could be no case of discrimination and/or unequal treatment between them when the respondent authorities have considered and had given reasons for their consideration they cannot be held to be in contempt when there had not been any wilful and/or contumacious disobedience of the said order. The learned Judge himself observed in the order that he did not give any mandatory direction to ameliorate the disparity in the pay scale on the contrary the learned Judge only gave such direction which would entitle the respondents to consider the case afresh in the light of the observation made by the learned Judge. In the order itself the learned Judge observed that such disparity could be removed and the same pay scale would be given to the staffs working at the mills provided they discharge the same functions as in the head office. The view taken by the respondent authorities on the basis of dis-similarity of functions discharged by the mill staffs from the head office staffs, the respondent authorities justified themselves in coming to the conclusion that both were not entitled to the same pay scales. If the learned Judge was of the view that there was disparity inspite of similar functions being discharged by the two groups of employees at the head office and at the mills there was no reason as to why the learned Judge could not give such direction in the writ petition itself. Instead the Court direct the authorities to consider the same. However, considering the sentiments expressed by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 7th of July, 1987, this Court adjourned the matter to enable the respondent authorities if they could re-consider the matter in the light of the observations of the court below in the order dated 21st March, 1986. The learned lawyer appearing for the respondent authorities upon instruction expressed their inability to remove the disparity on the grounds as indicated by them in their order. The learned Court below in the order found there was no sufficient evidence so far the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were concerned and held that Sri N. Chakraborty, Director, Personnel and Administration were held guilty for contempt and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of seven days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- when the said Director, Personnel & Administration has no authority by himself to allow equal remuneration to the employees of the mill in par with the remuneration of the employees engaged at the head office. The learned Court directed the Inspector of police to arrange for necessary conveyance and escort for the purpose of taking the said respondents to prison.
5. The National Textile Corporation by letter dated 18th August, 1987 intimated the advocate-on-record of the respondents that as desired the case was submitted before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, who after considering the matter agreed with the conclusion as contained in the letter dated 27th October, 1986 in the light of the judgment dated 21st March, 1986 passed by the learned Judge. In the said letter addressed to the General Secretary after fully discussing the case altogether in twenty four pages. Shri M. Chakraborty, Director, Personnel & Administration duly recorded the view of the management of the N.T.C. He personally did not form such opinion. Hence, it indicates that the decision was taken by the Management and expressed by Sri M. Chakraborty, Director, Personnel and Administration in the letter dated 27th October, 1986. Hence, he could not be held guilty for any alleged violation of any order passed by the Court below.
6. In the case , Randhir Singh v. Union of India it was held :-
"We concede that equation of posts and equation of any are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not the Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same"......
"Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle "Equal Pay for the Equal work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."
7. Under the circumstances, the order appealed from is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
A.K. Chatterjee, J.
8. I agree.