Government's Order To Revise Pay Scale On Recommendations Of Expert Committee Can't Be Refused By Employer On Grounds Of Disparity In Employees' Qualifications: Madras High Court

Background Facts

Government issued orders in 1989, to revise the pay scales of the Technical Staffs, after accepting the recommendations of the One Man Committee. The employees represented by the Tantea Employees' Federation (Respondent Union) claimed the benefits of Government Order. Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. (Appellant) rejected the claim on the ground that the qualification of the technical staffs in their service was different than the qualifications prescribed by other Government Departments. The respondent union then approached the government but their claim was denied. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent union filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant had been implementing the pay commission recommendations which were accepted by the Government so appellant had no reason to avoid the recommendations of the Government order. Therefore court set aside the order passed by the appellant with a further direction to comply with the Government order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the Writ Appeal.

The appellant contended that the respondents did not had a legal right to seek implementation of the government order, as the corporation was an independent legal entity and decisions regarding pay scale implementation rested with its board of directors. The appellant contended that the qualifications of their technical staff were different from those prescribed by the government order. They highlighted that their staff only needed to have passed the 8th standard with an ITI certificate, unlike the SSLC requirement in the government order. They argued that the respondents' claim was belated, as they had approached the court after a significant delay following the issuance of the government order in 1989.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the appellant had selectively implemented government orders regarding pay scale revisions, leading to disparities in the benefits received by the employees compared to those in other government departments. The respondents claimed that the issue of pay scale revisions constituted a continuing cause of action, as the incorrect fixation of pay would have ongoing effects on the employees until their retirement. They further asserted that the employees had a legal right to seek implementation of the government order, especially since the appellant had already adopted and implemented previous government orders regarding pay scale revisions. The respondents argued that the delay in approaching the court was justified, as they had been making representations since 1989, immediately after the issuance of the government order, and had approached the court after exhausting other remedies for redressal.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the respondents' claim was not barred by delay. It noted that the issue of pay scale revisions constituted a continuing cause of action, and the employees had been making representations and had approached the court after exhausting other remedies for redressal. The court affirmed that the respondents had a legal right to seek implementation of the government order. It noted that the appellant had already adopted and implemented previous government orders regarding pay scale revisions, and thus, the respondents were entitled to the benefits outlined in the order.

The court further rejected the appellant's contention regarding the disparity in qualifications. It emphasized that when the government accepted the recommendations of an expert committee and issued a subsequent order rectifying anomalies, such orders modified the original government order accepting the recommendations of the pay commission. Therefore, the appellant could not refuse to implement the subsequent order based on qualification differences. The court agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the order and upheld it.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal was dismissed.

Case No. : Writ Appeal No.1892 of 2019

Case Name: Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. P. Raghunathan for M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co.

Counsel for the Respondents : V. Ajay Khose; U. M. Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader; S. Rajesh, Government Advocate