top of page

Provisions of the Kalelkar Award Are Unequivocal: Supreme Court Upholds Employee Entitlements

Summary of the Judgment


  • Case Name: The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors.

  • Court: Supreme Court of India

  • Date: 19th September 2024

  • Judges: Honorable Justice Sandeep Mehta and Honorable Justice R. Mahadevan

  • Acts and Sections Involved:

    • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A

    • Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 28

    • Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 14

  • Cited Judgements:

    • Kalelkar Award (1967)

    • High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Judgement (15th November 2014)

    • Industrial Court, Yavatmal Judgement (31st October 2009)


Introduction


In the case of The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors., the Supreme Court of India dealt with an appeal filed by the appellants-employer against a High Court judgment that upheld the employees' entitlement to certain benefits under the Kalelkar Award. The central issue revolved around whether employees placed under a "Converted Temporary Establishment" were entitled to holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of the month, along with overtime pay for working on those days.


The case has far-reaching implications for labour rights, particularly concerning temporary employees in the public sector. Below is an analysis of the key aspects of the judgment and its broader implications.


Background


The respondent-employees were hired in various positions between 1974 and 1988 under the Public Works Department (PWD), Yavatmal. On 27th February 2004, these employees were placed under the "Converted Temporary Establishment" as per the Kalelkar Award, which governed their working conditions. The employees contended that, under the Kalelkar Award, they were entitled to holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of every month and that they should be paid overtime at one and a half times their salary for working on these holidays.


The appellants-employer rejected their claim, relying on a Government of Maharashtra resolution dated 10th January 1974, which purportedly excluded the 'field staff' from the entitlement to holidays. This refusal led to a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, being filed by the employees. The Industrial Court ruled in favour of the employees, a decision later upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.


The Kalelkar Award


The Kalelkar Award, passed in 1967, determined the service conditions for employees working in the Public Works Department across Maharashtra. The Award specifically granted employees holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays, along with public holidays. It also mandated overtime pay for any work performed on these holidays.

One of the significant contentions in this case revolved around whether the employees, who were transferred to a Converted Temporary Establishment, could claim these benefits. The appellants argued that the employees were not permanent staff and hence were not eligible for the same benefits as permanent employees. They further argued that the Government resolution of 1974 clearly excluded field staff from such entitlements.

Submissions by the Appellants


The appellants, represented by learned counsel, contended the following:

  1. The employees, being on a temporary establishment, should not be entitled to the same benefits as permanent employees.

  2. The Government's resolution dated 27th May 1996 further clarified that field staff would not be entitled to holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays.

  3. The nature of the work performed by the employees, including duties at guest houses attended by high-ranking officials, required them to be available on these holidays. They were compensated through regular weekly offs, which was sufficient.

The appellants further argued that the Industrial Court's ruling misinterpreted the Kalelkar Award, extending its benefits to categories of employees who were not eligible under the terms of the award.

Submissions by the Respondents


The respondents’ counsel vehemently opposed the submissions of the appellants. They argued that:

  1. The employees had been placed under the Converted Temporary Establishment, which entitled them to all the benefits accorded under the Kalelkar Award. This included holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays, as well as overtime pay for work done on those holidays.

  2. The denial of these benefits by the appellants amounted to unfair labour practices, in violation of the Maharashtra Act, 1971. Furthermore, the appellants had failed to issue the notice required under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when altering the employees' service conditions.

  3. The Government’s 1974 resolution, relied upon by the appellants, was not applicable to employees under the Kalelkar Award and should not be used to deny them their rightful entitlements.

The Court's Reasoning


The Supreme Court carefully examined the arguments and the material on record. The bench made several critical observations:

  1. Entitlement Under the Kalelkar Award: The Court found that the Kalelkar Award explicitly provided for holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays and public holidays for employees, excluding only daily-wage workers. As the respondents were part of a Converted Temporary Establishment and not daily-wage employees, they were entitled to these benefits. The Honourable Judges pointed out that "the provisions of the Kalelkar Award are unequivocal in extending these benefits to all categories of employees, barring daily-wage workers."

  2. Invalidity of the Government Resolution: The appellants’ reliance on the 1974 Government resolution was deemed misplaced. The Court noted that the resolution applied only to field staff and did not negate the rights granted under the Kalelkar Award to Converted Temporary Establishment employees. The Supreme Court emphasized that "the appellants’ attempt to restrict the scope of the Kalelkar Award through a resolution that does not directly address these employees is without merit."

  3. Unfair Labour Practice: The Court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the appellants engaged in unfair labour practices by denying the respondents their entitled benefits under the Kalelkar Award. The Court observed, "The appellants-employer's actions constituted a clear violation of labour rights, necessitating relief under the applicable legal provisions."

  4. Compliance with Industrial Court and High Court Orders: The Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Court and the High Court's judgements, directing the appellants to comply with the orders to provide the respondents with their entitled holidays and overtime pay.


In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, noting that "the appellants have failed to provide any cogent grounds for overturning the well-reasoned judgements of the Industrial Court and the High Court."


Conclusion


The case of The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors. is a landmark ruling that underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding employee rights under the Kalelkar Award. It provides clear guidance on the scope of benefits to temporary employees and reaffirms the principles of fairness and equity in the administration of labour laws in India.

Opmerkingen


BharatLaw.AI is revolutionising the way lawyers research cases. We have built a fantastic platform that can help you save up to 90% of your time in your research. Signup is free, and we have a free forever plan that you can use to organise your research. Give it a try.

bottom of page