Retirees can’t have the cake and eat it too: High Court

The ONGC hired Divekar on an ad hoc basis in 1985. He was appointed the Chief Officer-Sagar Samrat and was to be paid daily wages. Divekar objected to the arrangement of daily wages under the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) (section 33-C(2)). He moved the Labour Court, claiming that he was entitled to ONGC’s regular pay scale, just as any other of their employee.

Meanwhile, Divekar died during the pendency of the petition, following which his wife represented him in the court. The ONGC maintained that since he was not a `workman’ and that he was employed in a “supervisory capacity”, he could not invoke provisions of IDA. The Labour Court ruled that Divekar was entitled to a regular payscale under the accepted principles of `equal pay-equal work’. However, it added that his pension deserved to be deducted from the ONGC salary.

The petitioner now moved the Bombay High Court against the labour court order. Justice R M Lodha of the BHC ruled that “a claim based on `equal pay for equal work’ is not a pre-existing right”. Moreover, the IDA does not cover such disputes. On the contrary, the Supreme Court states that “it is only when the entitlement is earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and the implementation there of requires interpretation, that the provisions of the IDA can be invoked.”

But, in this case, Divekar had been inducted on daily wages from the onset. Therefore, it is beyond the powers of the Labour Court to grant him a regular payscale. The BHC ruled that Divekar should have produced the terms and conditions of his appointment to substantiate his claim.