Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
The observations made in paragraphs 276
and 277 in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
(supra), strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, should
not be read out of its context. In the said case the Court was called upon to
consider the constitutional validity of Regulation 9 of Delhi Road Transport
Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952,
which gave power to terminate the services of an employee after giving one
month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The termination of services of some
of the employees on the ground that they were inefficient in their work by
giving one month's notice was set aside by the High Court as in its opinion
Regulation 9(b) gave absolute unbridled and arbitrary powers to the
management to terminate the service of any permanent or temporary
employee and, therefore, the same was violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It was in this context that the aforesaid observations were
made by one Hon'ble Judge in his separate opinion. The issue involved was
not of revision of pay scale but that of termination of service which has an
altogether different impact on an employee.
South Malabar Gramin Bank vs Co-Ordination Committee Of South ... on 31 January, 2001
The other case namely All India Regional
Rural Bank Officers Federation & Ors. v. Government of India & Ors.
(2002) 3 SCC 554 arose out of interlocutory applications and contempt
petitions which were filed for implementation of the direction issued in the
earlier case namely South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra). Any observation
in these two cases to the effect that the financial capacity of the employer
cannot be held to be a germane consideration for determination of the wage
structure of the employees must, therefore, be confined to the facts of the
aforesaid case and cannot be held to be of general application in all
situations.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
State Of Maharashtra vs Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July, 1983
We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Venkataramani that on
account of non-revision of pay scales of the petitioners in the year 1992,
there has been any violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 provides that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. The scope and content of this Article has been expanded
by judicial decisions. Right to life enshrined in this Article means
something more than survival or animal existence. It would include the right
to live with human dignity. Payment of very small subsistence allowance to
an employee under suspension which would be wholly insufficient to sustain
his living, was held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in State
of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan AIR 1983 SC 803.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
It has been held to embrace within its field the right to
livelihood by means which are not illegal, immoral or opposed to public
policy in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 SC 108.
But to hold that mere non-revision of pay scale would also amount to a
violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 would be
stretching it too far and cannot be countenanced. Even under the Industrial
law, the view is that the workmen should get a minimum wage or a fair
wage but not that his wages must be revised and enhanced periodically. It is
true that on account of inflation there has been a general price rise but by
that fact alone it is not possible to draw an inference that the salary currently
being paid to them is wholly inadequate to lead a life with human dignity.
What should be the salary structure to lead a "life with human dignity" is a
difficult exercise and cannot be measured in absolute terms. It will depend
upon nature of duty and responsibility of the post, the requisite qualification
and experience, working condition and a host of other factors. The salary
structure of similarly placed persons working in other Public Sector
Undertakings may also be relevant. The petitioners have not placed any
material on record to show that the salary which is currently being paid to
them is so low that they are not able to maintain their living having regard to
the post which they are holding.
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958
The contention that economic viability of the industrial unit or the
financial capacity of the employer cannot be taken into consideration in the
matter of revision of pay scales of the employees, does not appeal to us.
The question of revision of wages of workmen was examined by a
Constitution Bench in Express Newspapers Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. AIR 1958 SC 578 having regard to the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act and Minimum Wages Act and the following principles for fixation of
rates of wages were laid down :
The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs Their Workmen on 14 December, 1962
(Emphasis supplied)
The same question was again examined in Hindustan Times Ltd. v.
Their Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1332 and the Court recorded its conclusion in
following words in para 7 of the Report :
Associate Bank'S ... vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 15 October, 1997
In Associate Banks Officers' Association v. State Bank of India
& Ors. 1998 (1) SCC 428 it was observed that many ingredients go into the
shaping of the wage structure of any organisation which may have been
shaped by negotiated settlements with employees' unions or through
industrial adjudication or with the help of expert committees. The
economic capability of the employer also plays a crucial part in it; as also its
capacity to expand business or earn more profits. It was also held that a
simplistic approach, granting higher remuneration to workers in one
organisation because another organisation had granted them, may lead to
undesirable results and the application of the doctrine would be fraught with
danger and may seriously affect the efficiency and at times, even the
functioning of the organisation. Therefore, it appears to be the consistent
view of this Court that the economic viability or the financial capacity of the
employer is an important factor which cannot be ignored while fixing the
wage structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to function and may
have to close down which will inevitably have disastrous consequences for
the employees themselves. The material on record clearly shows that both
FCI and HFC had been suffering heavy losses for the last many years and
the Government had been giving considerable amount for meeting the
expenses of the organisation. In such a situation, the employees cannot
legitimately claim that their pay scales should necessarily be revised and
enhanced even though the organisations in which they are working are
making continuous losses and are deeply in red.