A.R.Lakshtnanan - (1.) JUDGMENT , J.
(2.) THE petitioners are officers and supervisors employed in the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the IDPL"). THEy filed writ petition No. 678 of 1985 in this Court challenging the directions given by the Secretary , Ministry of Industry (the third respondent herein). This Court passed an order to comply with the orders passed by this Court. THEreupon the Government appointed Fifth Pay Commission in 1993 to consider revision of pay and allowances of the Central Government employees and pending final report, the Pay Commission granted three instalments of interim relief. According to the petitioners, the benefit was extended to the employees of all 69 Public Enterprises. THE grievance of the petitioners was that they were not given any instalment of interim relief and as there was no response from the Chairman and Managing Director of the IDPL, they filed contempt petition No, 490 of 1996 for violation of directions given by this Court's order dated 3.5.1990. THE contempt petition was dismissed as there was unprecedented financial crunch. On 24.10.1997, the Fifth Pay Commission recommended revision of scales of pay and allowances of the Central Government employees and the third respondent herein directed 6.9 Public Enterprises to revise the pay- scales of the employee following C.D.A. pattern w.e.f. 1.1.1996. As the first respondent did not take any action, the present writ petition No. 222 of 1998 was filed in this Court. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners placed strong reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 3.5.1990 in Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and -Anr. (1990) 3 SCC 436. He invited our attention to the terms of reference of the High Power Pay Committee and also its recommendations by its final report of 2.11.1988. Learned senior counsel has also invited our attention to the five directions given by this Court in the above judgment which read as follows :- "(i) The scales of pay and dearness allowance as recommended in the Report will be extended to those employees who have been appointed with specific terms and conditions for grant of Central dearness allowance. This will be equally applicable to the employees who by rules laid down by the public sector enterprises are being paid Central dearness allowance. (ii) The employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989, will be governed by such pay scales and allowances as may be decided by the government in its discretion. Those appointed earlier with IDA pattern will continue to be governed in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. (iii) The pay revision for those employees in respect of whom the recommendations are hereby being directed to be implemented hereafter, will take place only as and when similar changes are effected for the Central Government employees. These employees will, however, continue to enjoy the option to switch over the IDA pattern of the scales of pay etc. on a voluntary basis. (iv) The various recommendations made in the Report will be implemented with effect from the dates as follows. These dates are broadly in conformity with those specified in the Report. JUDGEMENT_157_SUPREME5_2003Html1.htm (v) The arrears arising on account of pay, DA and other allowances etc. would be adjustable against ad hoc payments made from time to time." However, the petitioners were not given any of these monetary benefits whereas the employees of other public sector undertakings received all instalments of interim relief. Finally, the petitioners issued a legal notice dated 5.8.1996 calling upon the management of the IDPL to release instalments of the interim relief and dearness allowance as already stated. The petitioners did not receive any reply to the said notice, therefore, they filed Contempt Petition No. 490 of 1996 for violation of this Court's judgment dated 3.5.1990. When the contempt petition was listed on 29.11.1996, the respondents informed the Court that the IDPL was undergoing unprecedented financial crunch and, therefore, was unable to pay the employees the two instalments of interim relief which were due by that date. It was also submitted that another set of employees had earlier approached this Court and no relief was given. In view of the submissions made, this Court dismissed the contempt petition, which is marked as Annexure-P IV. Mr. Sanghi contended that the reasons given by the respondents for non-payment of interim relief are not at all sound and that the notifications issued by the Government of India require all the undertakings to comply with the directions given by this Court and implement the recommendations of the Pay Committee and, therefore, no exception has been made in favour of those undertakings which incur losses every year. According to the petitioners, the Fifth Pay Commission revised pay and allowances of the Central Government employees and that the Government decided to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f 1.1.1996 and that the third respondent issued O.M. dated 24.10.1997 to 69 public undertakings directing them to revise the pay-scales of employees following C.D.A. pattern w.e.f. 1.10.1996. Mr. Sanghi also submitted that some undertakings like the National Textile Corporation, the Engineering Projects India Ltd. which have been incurring losses and which are before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as "the BIFR") have also adopted the revised scales of pay recommended by the Pay Commission. Concluding his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the directions contained in O.M. dated 24.10.1997 issued by the third respondent are binding on the first respondent, IDPL, which is one of the 69 undertakings and that officers of all 69 undertakings following CDA pattern of pay-scales form a class and withholding of the benefit of revision of scales from a section of the class is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that it is incumbent upon the respondents to ensure that IDPL carries out the directions issued by them. Arguing further the learned senior counsel submitted that the entire expenditure on salaries payable to the employees of the first respondent is borne by the Government and, therefore, financial constraints cannot be pleaded as an excuse for not paying the instalments of interim relief and not revising the pay-scale. Placing reliance on the clause (iii) of the directions issued by this Court, which has been extracted above in Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association (supra), Mr. Sanghi submitted that since the Government had revised the scales of its employees, the respondent - IDPL is bound to revise the pay-scales of the petitioners also.
(3.) WITH the above contentions, the petitioner filed the above writ petition with the following prayers :- (a) direct the respondents to revise scales of pay of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and pay the arrears immediately; (b) direct the respondents to pay three instalments of interim relief w.e.f. the dates the payment become due. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the IDPL - respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The first respondent submitted that for various reasons the IDPL became a sick industrial company and was declared as such by the BIFR vide its order dated 12 8.1992 in BIFR case No. 503 of 1992 under Section 3(1)(O) of SICA and that after protracted negotiations with the promoters. State Governments, banks and the employees an agreed revival package was formulated and was later approved by the BIFR under Section 17(2) of SICA vide its orders dated 10.2.1994 for implementation in the company w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and that during the formulation of the agreed revival package all the employees including the petitioners gave a written undertaking sacrificing various facilities and also categorically agreed for the deferment of wage revision for a period of four years w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned counsel appearing for the IPDL, submitted that the payment of the interim relief which was declared during the pendency of the Fifth Pay Commission time to time was not released to the petitioners mainly because there was a threat of industrial unrest and it was to be adjusted in the future wage revision by the Fifth Pay Commission in view of the expressed undertakings by the petitioners that they will not claim any wage revision for a period of four years from the date of implementation of agreed revival package. She would further submit that a modified package for consideration and approval of the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer, Government of India and the BIFR was submitted and the Government of India vide its letter dated 17.1.1996 addressed to the Chairman of BIFR recommended that the modifications proposed by the IDPL in the existing revival package be examined by an operating agency. Consequently, the BIFR vide its order dated 23.1.1996 declared that the agreed revival package has failed and appointed IDBI as an operating agency under Section 17(3) of SICA for suggesting measures for the revival of the respondent company. Learned counsel for the first respondent also submitted that the Government of India could not provide sufficient budgetary support to the IDPL and consequently the production activities had to be stopped in major two units of the company at Rishikesh and Hyderabad w.e.f. October, 1996 and that the respondent company has no means of generation of funds and the Government of India was continuing to give financial assistance for the payment of salaries only and the decision for the revival of the respondent company is still pending before the Government of India and the BIFR. It was also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the petitioners who are officers and supervisors constitute only 5 per cent of the total strength of the employees of the respondent company and that the wage revision in respect of other employees has not been sanctioned by the Government of India so far.;