A FIGHT FOR FAIR HOLIDAYS: THE KALELKAR AWARD CONTROVERSY
Category: Public & Regulatory
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACTS OF THE CASE
The respondent employees were appointed in different positions under the Public Works Department (PWD), Maharashtra, between 1982 & 1997 working as Mailmujar & Mali. On the 27 th February 2004 all such employees were transferred to the Converted Temporary Establishment under Kalelkar Award, 1967 which entitles the employees to Government holidays and also to overtime for working on 2 nd and 4 th Saturday.
However, the appellants-employer refused to accord them these benefits under a government resolution dated January 10, 1974, where certain clarifications given by the central government by a circular dated May 27,1996 stated that the ‘‘field staff’’ were not entitled to these privileges. The employees approached Industrial Court, Yavatmal, for implementation of their rights given under the Kalelkar Award in the same year 2006.
Respondent employees were victorious in the Industrial Court in December 2009 that was affirmed by the Bombay High Court in April 2014. The appellants-employer thereby appealed to the Supreme court.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1.To what extent the respondent-employees are legally permissible to avail the holidays on 2nd and 4th Saturdays as per the recommendations of Kalelkar Award?
2.Whether the appellants-employer was right in refusing to allow these benefits in view of the provisions of the 1974 Government Resolution and the 1996 Circular.
3.To what extent are the respondent-employees qualified to get an overtime compensation during holidays where they have to work.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
1.Kalelkar Award (1967): Offered for the second and fourth Saturdays as holidays and overtime allowance to the PWD employees.
2.Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: The complaint of the employees was filed under this Act with allegations of unfair labor practices.
3.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The respondent-employees relied on section 9A discussing alteration of service conditions to argue that the appellants-employer had breached it.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
They had the opinion that the respondent-employees were the temporary workers who could not get the like status under Kalelkar Award of the regular staff. On the same, they argued that operation of functions on 2 & 4 Saturdays and overtime for working on these days were deemed as privy to permanent employees and not for temporary workers. The appellants also relied on a government circular dated 1996 which, in their view, did not entitle respondents, who are considered field staff, to these perks. They also asked the respondents to mention that they had been deputed for essential duties like guest houses for the visiting dignitaries for which they have to anyway work during the holidays.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondents submitted that since they were employed under the Converted Temporary Establishment under the Kalelkar Award they are entitled for employment privileges such as being allowed to be off on 2nd and 4th Saturdays and being paid for any extra work done on those days. They contended that the appellants were infringing the principles of unfair employment practices by having thus deprived them of these rightful entitlements and having, at the same time violated provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as pertaining to failure to give a notice under sub section 9A in respect of alteration of their service conditions. The respondents also emphasized their stand that the 1996 Government Circular that the appellants relied on denied them did not supersede the Kalelkar Award that provided them these rights.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal which also applied the decisions of the Industrial Court and the Bombay High Court. The Court has said that the respondent-employees, being on the Converted Temporary Establishment, were entitled to government holidays, including 2nd and 4th Saturdays, as well as overtime pay for work being performed on such days under the Kalelkar Award.
The Court further held that the appellants-employer relied on the 1996 Circular in dealing with the respondent-employees and this Circular the appellants relied on did not apply because it was contained in specific cases and did not abrogate the provisions of the Kalelkar Award.
ANALYSIS
The judgment further reaffirmed the proposition of law that specific awards such as the Kalelkar Award, which specified and described the rights and privileges of the employee cannot be negated by the subsequent circulars/Resolutions. The Court took care to reiterate the principles of recognizing and respecting labor awards and the rights of employees and consumers particularly when they have been awarded under a recognized legal structure such as the Kalelkar Award.
And the latter was an important point stressing the protection of the workers’ procedural rights and referring to their employers’ neglect to provide collisions of notices under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act whenever they wanted to alter service conditions.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme court held that the respondent-employees had the right under the Kalelkar Award to claim public holidays meaning the 2nd and 4th Saturday of the month, and to overtime if they worked during such days. Taking solace on a 1996 Government Circular to justify the exclusion of these benefits, the appellants-employer erred because the Circular was not superimposed on the guidelines spelt out in the Kalelkar Award. The Court was very clear that the workers on the Converted Temporary Establishment are to receive these benefits, despite being classified temporary, as well as daily-wage workers.
This judgment reinforces the precept that employers cannot unreasonably exclude liberties conferred through long-standing labor awards where the new codes do not individually repeal them. It also goes along with the recognition of the MAC notification that requires parties to follow contractual processes like serving of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act before changing the service conditions.
The decision is very important on the basis of its protection of employees’ rights whereby workers cannot be locked out of their wages, benefits or other entitlements by mere technicalities in the provisions of the labor laws. The dismissal of the appeal also sends quite a clear message on advancements of fair labor practices as well as compliance with awards such as Kalelkar.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: PAYAL DEVNANI
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
