KARAPPURATH NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the employees of Hindustan petroleum Corportion Limited in a representative capacity and the grievance is about the discrimination in respect of wage structure between the Vizag marketing Unit of the Corporation and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Bombay. The petitioners also complain about the nature of grant of medical benefits, pension benefits and house rent allowance/housing subsidy to the Management staff on one hand and the non-management employees on the other. To appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to give the background of Constitution of the Corporation.

(2.) HINDUSTAN Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was formed by merger and amalgamation of Esso Standard Refining of India Ltd. , Lube India Ltd. and caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. The Corporation is a Government of India undertaking and the Parliament by Act No. 4 of 1974 enacted the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 providing for transfer and vesting of the undertaking of Esso in the Central Government. Thereafter various amalgamation orders were passed, resulting in coming into existence of the hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking. Under Section 9 of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, every whole time officer or other employee of Esso on the date of the takeover was to become officer/employee of the Central Government or the Government company, namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The complaint of the petitioners is that there is a wide gap in respect of wage structure of the employees of Vizag Marketing Unit employees and employees working in the main unit at Bombay. The Petitioners point out that on January 1, 1982 the employees of Vizag Marketing Unit were drawing fixed dearness allowance of rs. 847/-, while the employees of the main unit were granted fixed dearness allowance of Rs. 214/- only, with the result that there was a shortage of Rs. 633/- between the pay packets of the employees of the Vizag Unit and that of the employees of the main unit. Mrs. Mhatre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; submitted that the principle of equal pay for equal work is now well settled and it is not permissible for the respondents to make discrimination between the two units in respect of payment of dearness allowance. In support of the submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dhirendra Chameli and another v. State of U. P,1986 (52) FLR 147 (S. C.)Shri Siodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, controverted the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners by pointing out that the difference in payment of dearness allowance between the two Units of the Corporation arose because of the mode of computation of the amount of the dearness allowance in respect of the two units. It was pointed out that prior to February 1, 1982 dearness allowance payable to the Vizag marketing Unit staff was as per the Bombay Consumer Price Index for Working Class, while the employees at the main unit were receiving dearness allowance at Rs. I. 30 per unit rise in the All India Consumer Price Index over 244, and with effect from January 1, 1978. The learned counsel submitted that in accordance with the provisions of the take-over Act, the employees of the erstwhile Companies were to be employed on the same terms and conditions of service as were prevalent on the date of the take-over. It was contended that after the take-over the employees Union, which is common for both the units, entered into various settlements. with the management and efforts were made to reduce the disparity. A long term settlement was entered with the union, in conciliation, governing conditions of employees of the main unit and that settlement was reached on April 30, 1982. A settlement with the union in respect of employees of the Vizag unit was entered into on November 19, 1984 and it is provided that the conditions of service of the employees would be identical as that of the employees working at the main unit. It was, therefore, urged that in view of these two settlements there is no disparity whatsoever between the employees of the Vizag unit and the main unit. I inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the contenion is correct. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that she is not aware of any such settlement, but the claim in the petition is based on the disparity which was existing at the time of filing of the petition In these circumstances it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner because the disparity which was alleged by the petitioners at the time of filing the petition no longer survives in view of the settlement reached by the management with the employees union in respect of both the units. Shri Siodia, learned counsel for the Corporation, invited my attention to the decision of the Kerala High Court delivered on August 6,1985 in (Petroleum Workers' Union and others v. Union of India and others (2) where the learned Judge took a view that if any differences in service conditions are traceable to historical reasons, then the Court cannot insist upon sudden equality irrespective of the antecedent historical facts. In my judgment, the approach of the Kerala High Court is correct and deserves acceptance. In any event as the disparity no longer exists between the wage structures of the employees of the two units, no relief is required to be granted.

(3.) MRS. Mhatre then urged that there is discrimination in respect of grant of medical benefits, pensionary benefits and house rent allowance/house rent subsidy between the management staff and the non-management staff, and in support of the submission the learned counsel invited my attention to the charts, prepared and annexed as Exhibits 'c, 'd' and 'e' to the petition. It was urged that the management staff gets the maternity benefits, dental treatment, non-surgical treatment of eyes including eyes check-up, but these benefits are denied to the non-management employees. As regards the pensionary and medical benefits, says the learned counsel, there is a discrimination between the management staff and the non-management staff and so also in respect of house rent allowance. The learned counsel urged that in view of the directive principles set out under Article 39 of the Constitution there should be no discrimination whatsoever between the benefits given to the management staff and non-management staff. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for more than one reason. In the first instance the management staff and the non-management staff form two distinct and different cadres and it is futile to suggest that the employees belonging to these two distinct cadres perform the same kind of work. It cannot be denied that the wage scales drawn by the management staff are better than that drawn by the non-management staff, and it cannot be expected that each and every benefit conferred on the management staff must also be conferred on the non-management staff. Secondly, the medical benefits, pensionary benefits and house rent allowance is also made available to the non-management employees in view of the settlements dated April 13, 1983 and November 19, 1984 reached by the management with the employees union covering the employees of both the units. In view of these settlements, in my judgment, the grievance that the employees are deprived of the medical benefits, pensionary benefits and house rent allowance can no longer survive and the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief.