labour law, service conditions, DTC
0  02 Apr, 1991
Listen in mins | Read in 9:00 mins
EN
HI

D.T.C. Workers` Union & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

  Supreme Court Of India Writ Petition Civil /320/1987
Link copied!

Case Background

The Delhi Transport Corporation Workers’ Union brought a case to the Supreme Court to enforce the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations for Delhi Transport Corporation employees.

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊
Disclaimer: We do not store your data.
Document Text Version

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

D.T.C . WORKERS' UNION & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/04/1991

BENCH:

THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

BENCH:

THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:

1991 SCR (1) 984 1991 SCC (2) 618

JT 1991 (2) 49 1991 SCALE (1)536

ACT:

Pay Scales-D.T.C. employees-Implementationof

recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission-Office Order

No.DGM(IR)/84/90 dated 7.2.1984-Construction of.

HEADNOTE:

The D.T.C. Workers' Union and some of its members have

filed this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution praying, as the main relief, for issue of a

Writ of Mandamus or Direction to the respondent-Corporation

to implement w.e.f. 1.1.86 the recommendations of the Fourth

Pay Commission as approved by the Government of India to the

Central Government employees as per the undertakings given

to its employees vide Office Orders No.PLD-IX (465/83/10589

dated 15.9.1983 and DGM(IR)/84/90 dated 7.2.1984. Relying on

the undertakings given in the said Office Orders it has been

contended on behalf of the petitioners that the D.T.C.

employees will be entitled not only to new pay-scales as

recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission to the

corresponding categories in the Central Government but more

in the shape of interim reliefs which they has enjoyed

during the period of interregnum between their original pay-

scale and the new pay-scales.

On behalf of the Corporation it has been submitted that

all the reliefs which its employees had earlier received, be

it additional payment in the nature of interim relief in the

sum of Rs.50 or Rs.70 as the case may be, or the revised

interim pay-scale, pending adoption of the new scale

recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission, would merge into

the new scale and they would have no entitlement to any

additional payment as any such differential treatment will

be discriminatory and, therefore, unsustainable.

Disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court,

HELD: The overriding consideration behind the Order

dated 7.2.1984 is that, as in the case of all Government

employees, so in the case of the Corporation employees, the

new scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission should

be fully implemented. Whatever may be the amounts actually

payable in terms to the interim reliefs, the

985

employees of the Corporation should neither be paid less nor

more than the Government employees in the corresponding

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

categories.[989C]

All employees, whether retained on the original pay-

scale or placed on the revised interim pay-scale during the

period preceding 1.1.86, will be placed on the pay-scale

adopted as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay

Commission in such a way that will be fitted exactly in

positions corresponding to their positions on the earlier

pay-scales. But the corresponding positions in the new pay-

scale will naturally carry better emoluments, so as to

maintain parity with the Government employees in like

categories. We have no doubt that the recommendations of the

Fourth Pay Commission will be fully implemented in terms

thereof. [989D-E]

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition No. 320 of 1987.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Jitender Sharma for the Petitioners.

Kepil Sibal, Ms. Tamali Das Gupta, Ms. J. Wad and Mr.

R.Venkataramani (NP) for the Respondent.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

THOMMEN,J. This petition has been filed by the D.T.C.

Workers' Union and some its members. The main relief sought

by them, as contained in prayer (a), reads:

"Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Direction to the

respondent the Delhi Transport Corporation to implement

w.e.f. 1.1.86 the recommendations of the Fourth Pay

Commission as approved by the Government of India to the

Central Government employees as per the undertakings gives

to its employees vide Office Order NO.PLD-IX(465)/83/10589

dated 15.9.1983 and DGM(IR)/84/93 dated 7.2.1984."

The petitioners as well as the respondent, the Delhi

Transport Corporation, rely heavily upon the Office Order

No. DGM(IR)/84/90 dated 7.2.1984 issued by the Deputy

General Manager of the respondent-Corporation, although they

differ in their construction of what it contains. We shall,

therefore, read the whole Order;

986

"..........Before Interim Relief was announced by

the Central Government for its employees to be paid

w.e.f. 1.6.83, the Wage Group constituted by the

Government of India for considering the demand

regarding revision of pay-scales of the employees

of the Delhi Transport Corporation gave its report

recommending revision of pay-scales of all the

Class III & IV employees as an interim measure

pending receipt of Fourth Pay Commission report.

Thus the revised scales themselves were in the

shape of an interim relief. As interim relief was

announced by the Government for its employees

almost simultaneously some unions approached the

Management opposing the introduction of new scales

and asking for the interim relief as at the

Government rates. It was explained to them that the

revised scales have a greater in built advantage as

the benefit in some cases go even over hundred

rupees while interim relief for workers was fifty

to seventy rupees. However, an option was given

vide circular No.PLD-IX(465)/83/10589 dated 15.9.83

to the employees of the Corporation either to avail

the benefit of interim relief and retain the old

pay scales or to avail the benefit of the revised

pay-scales. In reference to the clarification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

sought by the Unions, it was made absolutely clear

beyond any ambiguity to the employees that -(1)

there is absolutely no intention to de-link the DTC

from the Central Government pay-structure and DA

pattern arbitrarily or unilaterally; (ii) if the

Fourth Pay Commission granted any further interim

relief or benefit before the final report, such

benefit will be available to the DTC employees;

(iii) the differential in the head start now given

in the pay-scales will be maintained even while

implementing the scales recommended by the Fourth

Pay Commission and (iv) the payscales recommended

by the Working Group would be enforceable for a

period of four year or the receipt of report of

the Commission whichever is earlier. It has

already been made amply clear that differential in

"head start" given in the revised pay scales will

be maintained even while implementing the scales

recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. In

fixation of pay in the scales to be recommended by

the Foruth Pay Commission, the employees coming

over to the revised scales of pay will be given due

benefit of Central Government Interim Relief so as

to ensure that they are not at any disadvantage

because of having opted for the revised scales now.

For instance, if the

987

pay of an individual in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400

drawing a basic pay of Rs.260 per month who had

opted for interim Relief at Central Government

rates is fixed at Rs.310 p.m. by adding Rs.50 as

Interim Relief a Basic Pay of Rs.260 whereas the

pay of an employee who has opted for corresponding

revised pay-scale of Rs.284-440 and is drawing

Basic pay of Rs.284 p.m. will be fixed at Rs.334

p.m. by adding Rs.50 to his Basic Pay of Rs.284. In

this connection our circular NoPLD-IX(465) 83 dated

20.9.93 referees.

It has been clearly shown in the above

illustrations as to how the revised pay-scales will

be beneficial to the employees. It is opted that

the employees will not be mislead now by any such

interpretation which is being placed on the

Ministry of Finance's O.M. of 28th November ,1983."

Referring to the concept of "head start" mentioned in

the Order, Mr. Jitender Sharma, appearing for the

petitioners, submits that it being the intention of the

Corporation to protect the interim relief granted to the

employees, not withstanding the recommendations of the

Fourth Pay Commission, the employees are entitled to the

interim relief, referred to as the "head start", in addition

to the pay-scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission,

In other words, according to Mr.Sharma, the employees will

be entitled not only to the new pay-scale recommended by the

Fourth Pay Commission, but more in the shape of interim

reliefs which they had enjoyed during the period of the

interregnum between their original pay-scale and the new

payscale.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for the respondent-

Corporation, submits that all that the Order dated 7.2.1984

has intended to state is that the "head start" in the form

of interim relief will not deprive the employees of the full

benefits of either the revised interim pay-scale, i.e., the

scale as revised during the interregnum, or the new pay-

scale subsequently introduced as per the recommendations of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

the Fourth Pay Commission. The employees had the option

either to accept the additional payment in the nature of an

interim relief in the sum of Rs.50 or Rs.70 as the case may

be, or the revised interim pay-scale which was itself in the

nature of an interim relief, pending adoption of the new

scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. But once the

employees are placed on the scale recommended by the Fourth

Pay Commission, all the reliefs which they had earlier

received would merge into the new scale and they would have

no entitlement to any

988

additional payment. Any payment in addition to what the

Fourth Pay Commission recommended would place the employees

of the Corporation at an undue advantage in comparison to

the employees of the Government in Corresponding grades. Any

such deferential treatment, counsel points out, will be

discriminatory and, therefore, unsustainable.

Mr. Sharma, however, refers to the scales of pay

relating to the category of conductors, tailors,compositors

etc. Their scale of pay prior to June, 1983 was Rs.260-6-

290-EB-6-326-EB-8-390-10-400. A revised interim scale was

introduced on 1.6.1983. This scale was Rs.284-8-340-10-440.

On 1.1.86, a new scale was introduced on the basis of the

recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. That scale is

Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500. This shows that, prior to

1.1.1986, an employee on the scale of Rs.260-400 as on

31.5.1983 had the option either to remain on that scale and

draw an additional allowance or be placed on the revised

interim scale of Rs.284-440 . On 1.1.1986 all employees in

the category of conductors etc., came on the scale of

Rs.950-1500 whether or not, prior to that date, they had, in

exercise of their option, remained on the original scale or

Rs.260-400 with the additional allowances or been placed on

the revised interim scale Rs.284-440. According to Mr.

Sharma, the "head start" promised by the Corporation means

the additional allowances or revised scales recieved by the

employees during the interregnum, and such benefits have to

be super imposed over the new scale of Rs.950-1500. He

further submits, insofar as none of the employees of the

Corporation had opted to remain on the original scale with

the additional allowances, but had come on the revised

interim pay-scale, all the employees brought on the new

pay-scales on 1.1.86 are entitled to be fitted with

reference to the total emoluments drawn on the revised

interim scale.

A careful reading of the Order dated 7.2.1984 shows

that certain interim benefits were granted to the employees

preceding the introduction of the new pay-scale on the basis

of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay commission. These

benefits which were either in the nature of an additional

payment or a revised interim pay-scale were intended to

cover the period preceding the introduction of the regular

pay-scale which came into effect on 1.1.86. The Order

further shows that the Corporation was to carry the same pay

structure and DA pattern as in the case of the Government

employees in the corresponding categories. All benefits

granted by the Fourth Pay Commission in the nature of

interim reliefs were also to be made available to the

989

Corporation employees. The interim reliefs granted by the

Corporation in the nature of what is imprecisely referred to

as "head start" were to be maintained in implementing the

scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. The figures

worked out in the penultimate paragraph of the Report

indicate that whether the employees were retained on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

original pay-scale with the additional emoluments by way of

interim relief or they had, as in the instant case, opted

for the revised interim scale, they should suffer no loss by

reason of the option they hadexercised. But the overriding

consideration behind the Other dated 7.2.1984 is that, as in

the case of all Government employees, so in the case of the

Corporation employees, the new scale recommended by the

Fourth Pay Commission should be fully implemented. What ever

may be the amounts actually payable in terms of the interim

reliefs, the employees of the Corporation should neither be

paid less nor more than the Government employees in the

corresponding categories.

This means that all employees, whether retained on the

original pay-scale or placed on the revised interim pay-

scale during the period preceding 1.1.86 will be placed on

the pay-scale adopted as per the recommendations of the

Fourth Pay Commission in such a way that they will be fitted

exactly in positions corresponding to their positions on the

earlier pay-scales. But the corresponding positions in the

new pay-scales will naturally carry better emoluments, so as

to maintain parity with the Government employees in like

categories.

In the circumstances, we have no doubt that the

recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission will be fully

implemendted in terms thereof. Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing

for the Corporation, assures us that it will be so done. Mr.

Sibal's submission is recorded. In the circumstances, no

further order is required. The writ petition is accordingly

disposed of. No costs.

R.N.J. Pentition disposed of.

990

Reference cases

Description

Case Analysis: D.T.C Workers' Union & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1991)

In the pivotal case of D.T.C Workers' Union & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the Supreme Court of India addressed a crucial issue concerning Fourth Pay Commission implementation and the principle of DTC pay scale parity with Central Government employees. This landmark judgment, prominently featured on CaseOn, settled a contentious dispute over whether interim financial reliefs granted to employees should merge with or be paid in addition to the final revised pay scales, setting a precedent for public sector undertakings across the nation.

Case Background

The dispute arose during the transition period leading up to the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations, effective from January 1, 1986. Before the new pay scales were finalized, the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), in line with Central Government practices, offered its employees interim benefits to offset the delay. Employees were given a choice: either receive a flat interim relief amount (Rs. 50 or Rs. 70) while remaining on their old pay scales or opt for a revised interim pay scale.

The D.T.C. Workers' Union, representing the employees, later filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court. They argued that based on undertakings in official Office Orders, particularly one dated February 7, 1984, the interim benefits they had enjoyed constituted a "head start." They contended that this "head start" should be paid over and above the new pay scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission.

Legal Analysis using IRAC Framework

Issue

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the interim reliefs granted to DTC employees prior to the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission were meant to be an additional, continuing payment on top of the new pay scales, or were they intended to be absorbed and merged into the final revised pay structure?

Rule

The Court’s decision was not based on a specific statute but on the interpretation of administrative undertakings and the constitutional principle of equality. The primary rule applied was the "overriding consideration" behind the Office Order of February 7, 1984. This consideration was to maintain complete pay parity between DTC employees and their counterparts in the Central Government. Any interpretation that would result in DTC employees earning more than Central Government employees in corresponding categories would be discriminatory and, therefore, unsustainable.

Analysis

The Court meticulously analyzed the arguments from both parties and the language of the disputed Office Order.

  • The Petitioner's Stance (DTC Workers' Union): The Union heavily relied on the phrase "head start" and the assurance that the "differential" would be maintained even after implementing the new scales. They interpreted this as a promise that their earlier financial advantage, gained through interim reliefs, would be preserved as a separate entitlement.
  • The Respondent's Stance (DTC): The Corporation argued that the interim reliefs were temporary measures designed to provide immediate financial support pending the final report. The ultimate objective was the complete and uniform adoption of the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations. Paying an additional amount would disrupt the intended parity with government employees and create an unjustifiable anomaly.

Dissecting such nuanced interpretations of administrative orders can be complex. For legal professionals on the go, resources like CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs provide a quick and efficient way to grasp the core reasoning in landmark rulings like this one.

The Supreme Court found merit in the Corporation’s argument. It reasoned that the term "head start" was intended to assure employees that by opting for an interim benefit, they would not be at a disadvantage when their pay was fixed in the new scale. The goal was to ensure a smooth transition, not to create a permanent additional payment. The Court emphasized that the overriding principle was parity. If the Union’s interpretation were accepted, DTC employees would receive a windfall, placing them in a superior financial position to government employees, which was never the intention.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that all interim reliefs, whether in the form of a flat payment or a revised interim scale, were to be merged into the new, comprehensive pay scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. The Court held that DTC employees should be paid neither less nor more than Central Government employees in corresponding positions.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the Delhi Transport Corporation to fully implement the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, ensuring all employees were correctly fitted into the new pay scales based on their earlier positions.

Final Summary of the Judgment

In essence, the Supreme Court prioritized the principle of pay parity in public employment. It clarified that interim benefits provided during the revision of pay scales are transitional aids, not permanent entitlements. These benefits are meant to be absorbed into the final, more beneficial pay structure, ensuring uniformity and fairness across a public sector organization and its governmental counterparts.

Why is this Judgment Important?

  • For Lawyers and HR Professionals: This case is a crucial precedent on the interpretation of service conditions, administrative orders, and undertakings related to pay revision. It underscores that the larger objective of equality and non-discrimination often overrides literal interpretations of interim circulars.
  • For Law Students: The judgment provides a practical lesson in purposive interpretation. It shows how courts look beyond specific words like "head start" to understand the fundamental intent of an administrative policy, especially when it intersects with constitutional principles of equality (Article 14). It serves as an excellent case study on the implementation of Pay Commission reports and the legal challenges that can arise.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal issues, it is recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional.

Legal Notes

Add a Note....