Supreme Court Dismisses MSRTC’s Appeal; Upholds Industrial Court's Order Declaring 2015 Pay Revision Unfair
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court, which allowed the complaints filed by the workmen in 2015, challenging the revision of their salaries.
The Supreme Court dismissed Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation’s (MSRTC) Appeal, upholding the Industrial Court’s decision that the 2015 wage revision for workmen amounted to an unfair labour practice by canceling benefits granted in 2010.
The Complaints were based on the claim that the wage revision Order had canceled the earlier wage fixation and constituted an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Appeal stemmed from the Bombay High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Industrial Court’s Order, which had allowed the Complaints filed by the workmen. The Court dismissed the Appeals, upholding the decisions of the Industrial Court and the High Court.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran remarked, “We reiterate, at the risk of repetition, that when the order of the Industrial Court came on 30.10.2008 and the pay scales were granted in the year 2010, the decision in Premlal 1 was already in existence and before the fixation of 2010, MSRTC had taken steps to implement Premlal 1 in 2009. The confusion has been created only by reason of the conditions of absorption being applied to the earlier provisions of 1959 and 1978, which Premla 1 itself clarified, operates in different fields.”
The ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate P.N. Misra represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The dispute revolved around a series of settlements and resolutions concerning the eligibility of daily wage workers for the time scale of pay. The MSRTC contended that the 2015 revision was in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra SRTC v. Premlal (2007) which clarified the interpretation of various settlements. The MSRTC further argued that the 1956-Settlement, 1978-Resolution, and 1985-Settlement had to be read together, making the revision necessary to bring parity with respect to similarly placed workers.
The workmen argued that the pay fixation of 2010 had already been granted based on an Industrial Court Order from 2008, which had attained finality. They contended that the revision in 2015 was arbitrary, as it was carried out without notice and did not reference the Premlal (supra) Judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the Premlal judgment and reiterated that the eligibility conditions under Clause 49 of the 1956-Settlement and Clause 19 of the 1985-Settlement operated in different fields. The Court held that while the 1985-Settlement provided for absorption into the regular cadre based on selection, the entitlement to time scale pay under earlier settlements remained distinct.
“We are unable to accept the contention raised by the MSRTC in the appeals, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, the 2010 fixation which is sought to be revised in 2015 was after Premlal 1 and also in compliance of an order of the Industrial Court in the year 2008; which order too was subsequent to Premlal 1 , granting pay scales as applicable to regular workers,” the Bench remarked.
The Court also observed that MSRTC had not challenged the Industrial Court’s 2008 order, which formed the basis for the 2010 pay fixation. It held that revising salaries in 2015 without reference to these prior decisions was unjustified. The Court rejected MSRTC’s argument that the revision was merely an implementation of Premlal, noting that the 2010 fixation had already taken Premlal into account.
Consequently, the Court held, “For all the above reasons, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge which confirms the interference made by the Industrial Court to the pay scale revision effected in the year 2015.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash & Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 279)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASG Aishwarya Bhati; Advocates Vyom Raghuvanshi, Akanksha Rathore and Kinjal Sharma; AOR Mayuri Raghuvanshi
Respondent: Senior Advocate P.N. Misra; AOR Ritesh Patil and Shivaji M. Jadhav; Advocates Jitendra Kumar, Ray Abhishek Joshi, Saurabh Singh, Brij Kishor Sah, Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Vignesh Singh, Aditya S. Jadhav and Rohan Wadhwa
