Holding

The claim for equal pay for equal work is untenable as the work is not equal, but the mill staff are entitled to special relief and the Central Government must determine and implement such relief within the stipulated time.

Summary

The Central Government nationalised sick textile mills under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and placed them under National Textile Corporation Ltd. Staff employed in the mills sought parity in pay with staff in the corporation's corporate offices, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. The matter was referred to the National Industrial Tribunal, which in 1996 found that the work performed by mill staff was not equal to that of office staff; this finding was endorsed by the one‑man Sathyam Committee in 2000, which nevertheless recommended special relief for mill workers. The Union of India argued that granting relief would impose an additional financial burden and interfere with ongoing BIFR rehabilitation schemes, while the workers contended that the disparity in emoluments (rising from 159% in 1987 to 642% in 2000) amounted to discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the claim for equal pay could not be sustained because the two fact‑finding bodies had concluded there was no equal work, but it recognised that mill staff had been denied pay revisions for decades and were entitled to some relief. Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Government to determine the extent of relief, possibly by appointing an expert, within four months and to implement it within two months, emphasizing the Government's statutory liability under Section 5(2)(c) of the 1974 Act.

Issues considered

Whether staff and sub‑staff employed in the nationalised textile mills are entitled to equal pay with staff of the corporate offices on the basis of equal work.
Whether the disparity in pay constitutes discrimination prohibited by Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
Whether the Central Government can deny relief on the ground of financial burden and pending BIFR rehabilitation schemes.
Whether the findings of the National Industrial Tribunal and the Sathyam Committee are binding on the Court.

Legislation cited

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

Subjects

equal pay for equal workdiscriminationstatutory liabilitynationalisationdearness allowanceBIFR rehabilitationpay revisionpublic sector undertakingcentral government responsibility

Judgment

A CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
TEXTILES CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
v.
N.T.C. (W.B.A.B. &.O) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS.

OCTOBER 14, 2003
B
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

SERVICE LAW:

C Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974-Section
5(2)(c)-Sick textile mills taken over by Central Government under the
t
Act-Staff working in mills seeking parity in pay scales with staff working
J
in corporate offices-Claim of-National Industrial Tribunal and a
Committee, appointed for the purpose, holding that there is no equal work
between two categories of staff-Disparity widening during the period
D under litigation-Plea of additional financial burden since rehabilitation
schemes already pending before BIFR-Held, on facts, the claim of equal
pay for equal work not tenable on the basis of the findings of the two fact
finding bodies-However, there is no justification in discrimination by
Central Government between two categories of staff-Since both the
E categories belong to one parent company, the financial burden should be
shared by both-Central Government has to discharge its responsibility
de hors the BIFR schemes-Central Government to work out the extent of
reliefto staffworking in mills within four months and to implement it within
two months thereafter-Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 39(d)-
F Equal pay for equal work.
The Central Government took over various sick textile mills in
different parts of the country under the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and transferred them to National Textile
Corporation Ltd. (NTC). The staff/sub staff working in the mills
G claimed parity with the pay scales given to the staff working in the
corporate offices of NTC and its subsidiaries on the basis of 'equal pay
equal work'. They claimed that the nature of work performed by them
is the same as those working in the corporate offices. Some associations
filed petitions before various High Courts seeking revision of pay scales
H on the plea of 'equal pay for equal work'. This Court directed the cases
722
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD. v. NT.C.(WBAB & 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION 723

to be transferred to itself from different High Courts. In 1989, this A
Court, with a view to find an amicable settlement, directed the National
Industrial Tribunal to look into and resolve the controversies. The
Tribunal submitted a Report in 1996 finding that then! is no equal
work between the two categories of staff. The Tribunal, however, failed
to resolve the controversies. In the mean time, during the pendency of B
the matter, the management refused to revise the pay scales of the staff
working in the mills on the plea that the matter was subjudice. This
resulted in widening the disparity in pay scales between the two groups
from 159% in 1987 to 642% in 2000.

On the direction of this Court, the Central Government in 1999 C
appointed a one man Committee (Sathyam Committee) to look into the
grievances of the staff and sub staff of the NTC mill regarding their
pay structure. The Committee gave a report in October 2000 stating
that the two categories of employees are not performing equal work
and that they are not entitled for equal pay. The Committee, however, D
recommended some 'special relier to the staff working in the mills on
account of delay in settlement of the dispute.

The Union of India contended that the recommendations of the
Sathyam Committee have been implemented in full and nothing
survives; that various mills were declared sick under the Sick Industries E
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) and that the
proceedings before the Board oflndustrial and Financial Reconstruction
(BIFR) for rehabilitation are pending; that for some sick mills, the
BIFR had already formulated and sanctioned schemes and are being
implemented; that any grant of further relief to the workers will put F
additional financial burden and would upset the rehabilitation; and
that there is disparity since the staff of corporate offices is on the
Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern while the staff working in
the mills is on the variable Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA)
pattern governed by region-cum-industry awards. G
The respondent-Associations contended that there is equality and
parity in the work and the working conditions between the two
categories and hence are entitled for equal pay.

Disposing of the matters, the Court H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A HELD : 1.1. The National Industrial Tribunal found against the
staff of the Mills. The finding of the Tribunal was endorsed by the Satlttyam
Committee. In the face of the findings of the two fact finding bodies, this
Court is unable to take a different view of the issue. This Court has no
reason to differ with the finding of fact on this issue arrived at by the two
B independent bodies. Hence the claim of the staff based on the principle
of equal pay for equal work is not tenable. Wheit the work is not l:qual,
the question of equal pay does not arise. [732-D-F]

1.2. The staff/sub staff working in the Mills have unfortunately
received a step motherly treatment. They have not had a pay revision for
C years. The Sathyam Committee had noticed the sorry plight of the
workers. The Committee gave some ad hoc relief to the workers which is
not enough. The Sathyam Committee noticed disparity in the pay scales
of the two categories of workers which is highly unjust and unfair. The
staff working in the corporate offices of the Mills is also staff of the
D parent body. If the mill is incurring losses, the impact has to be on ev1?ryone
connected with the mills in whatever capacity. There cannot be double
standards. There will be financial burden even if the pay scales of the
office staff are revised. There can be no case for total denial of revision
of pay to the staff/sub staff working in the mills. The Government has a
E statutory lilability for the wages, salaries and dues of the workers. The
pay revision was being allowed in case of one category of workers within
the same organisation, while it was being denied to another category of
workers, giving rise to discrimination. [732-F-H, 733-A-C, 734-D] ..

A.K. Bindal & Anr. v. Union of India, [2003) 5 SCC 163, refe'rred
F to.

1.3. Discrimination between the two categories of staff cannot be
justified on the basis of applicability of the CDA pattern and titie IDA
pattern to the respective categories of staff. The IDA pattern cannot
G be taken to debar any revision of pay scales. The Central Government
has to act as a model employer and such specious pleas on its part are
highly improper an~ unjustified. (733-D]

1.4. A case for relief to the staff/sub staff working in the Mills is
H definitely made out. The workers deserve some relief though not parity
CHAIRMAN.CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD. v. N.T.C.(WBAB & 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION 725

of pay scales with -staff/sub-staff working in corporate offices but A
certainly on account of revision of pay scales/increase of D.A. or
emoluments from time to time as and when fell due during the period
of nearly three decades since when, no revision of their pay scale has
been made. [733-E]
B
1.5. This Court is ill-equipped to work out the extent ofreliefwhich
can be granted to the workers in the mills. Therefore, the Central
Government is directed to take appropriate steps which if so required
may include appointment of an expert to work out the extent of relief
which oughtto be granted to the workers in the mills. Some considerations C
may be had about the financial constraints, if any, but it cannot be to the
extent of virtual denial of any benefit. Before taking a final decision in
the matter, an opportunity of hearing be allowed to the management as
well as to the workers to enable them to place their respective stands
before the decision making authority. The decision should be taken within D
four months from the date of this judgment and the same should be
implemented within two months thereafter. [733G-H, 734-A-B)

1.6. The proceedings before BIFR has been pending since 1993 i.e.
for more than ten years. The management was all along fully aware
of the demand of the workers of the mills in this behalf. Their cases E
have been pending in courts since much before the rehabilitation
schemes were conceived of. In the various deliberations with the
workers it has been noted that rehabilitation schemes are independent
of any orders that may be passed by this Court. Therefore, pendency
of the rehabilitation schemes before BIFR is not a sufficient ground to F
deny relief to the staff/sub staff working in the mills. As per the
provisions of sections 5(2)(c) of the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the wages, salaries and other dues of the
employees of the sick textile undertakings after the takeover of their
managements by the Central Government are the responsibility of the G
Central Government. It has failed to discharge its responsibility for all
these years by raising such specious pleas. [734-F-H, 735-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14572 of
1996.
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.88 of.the Calcutta High
Court in W.P. No. Nil of 1988.,

WITH

W.P (C) No. 34/88, 1073, 1074/89 T.P. (C) No. 289/88, W.P. (C)
B Nos. 152/88, 214/89, 218, 44, 134, 211/88, 161/87, 579/89, T.P.(C)
No. 290 of 1988.

Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, T.C.R. Ray, N.N Goswami,
P.P. Singh, H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, B.S. Banthia, Hemant
C Sharma, S. Wasim A. Qu:idri, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ajay Sharma, D.S.
Mabra, P'. Parmeswaran, B.V. Niren, M. Veerappa, Naresh Kaushik, Ms.
Shilpa Chohan, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, Mrs. ,Urmila Sirur, Narender Kaushik,
Pankaj Kaushik, Ashok.Kumar Sharma, Charan Lal Sahu, Ms. Homa Sahu,
D.P. Mukherjee, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee and P.K. Mullick for the Appearing
D parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARUN KUMAR, J. : Various textile mills in the country came to
be vested in the Central Government by virtue of the provisions under
E Section 3 (1) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974.
The Central Government transferred all such mills to the National Textile
Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NTC') which was brought into
existence for this purpose. Under Section 5 of the said Act the liability
towards wages, salaries and other dues of workers of such mills aft1!r the
F takeover of management by the Central Government, is that of the Central
Government.

The issue involved in these cases is regarding the claim of the staff/
sub staff engaged by the various textile mills under the NTC for 'equal pay
for equal work'. The staff working in the mills. is claiming pay equal to
G or in parity with the pay scales prevailing for the staff working in the
corporate offices of the mills. It is not in dispute that the office staff/sub
staff is on the Central Dearness Allowance pattern (for short CDA) while
the staff/sub staff working in the mills is on the variable Industrial Dearness
Allowance pattern (for short IDA) governed by region: cum : Industry
H awards. It is to be noted that there has never been any parity in the pay
CHAIRMAN.CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD. v. N.T:C.(WBAB &. 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION (ARUN KUMAR. l.) 727

scales between the staff working i.n the corporate offices of the NTC and A
its subsidiaries and the staff working in the mills. However, over the years
the disparity between the pay scales of the staff working in the corporate
offices and staff working in the mills has become highly disproportionate.
It has been noticed by the Sathyam Committee, to which reference will be
made in detail subsequently, that as against 159% increase in the emoluments B
of the staff working in the corporate offices over the staff working in the
mills in the year 1987, the proportion has increased by the year 2000 to
642%. It is this disproportion between the pay scales of the staff working
in the corporate offices and the staff working in the mills which has Jed
to tremendous discontent amongst the staff working in the mills and it is
this discontentment which is the root cause of this entire litigation. The C
problem is further aggravated by the fact that the NTC as well as most of
its subsidiaries have been constantly incurring losses and majority of them
are sick companies facing proceeding under the Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provision) Act, 1985 (in short 'SICA').
D
In support of their plea of "equal pay for equal work" the staff
working in the mills claimed that the nature of work performed by them
is the same as the staff working in the corporate offices. They have gone
to the extent of saying that there is interchangeability between the staff
working at the two places. The subsidiaries of the NTC are spread over E
in different parts of the country.· The staff working in some of the
subsidiaries through their associations approached the respe~tive High
Courts in the country for relief regarding revision of pay scales raising the
plea of "equal pay for equal work". Ultimately these cases stood
transferred to this Court and were bunched together. The matter has been
pending in this Court for quite some time. The effort of the Court has been F
to find an amicable settlement of the problem. In fact, by an order dated
29th September, 1989, by consent of all the counsel appearing for the
parties, reference was made to the National Industrial Tribunal in a bid to
resolve the controversy. The Tribunal deliberated on the issues involved
over a long period of time. It ultimately submitted its report on 17th July, G
1996. This report did not succeed in resolving the issues. The report found
that the "workmen in the mills are getting lesser emoluments than those
comparable categories of employees serving in the corporate offices. The
workmen have succeeded in showing that there are some similarities in the
work done by two sets of employees but they have failed to show H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A satisfactorily that employees working in the mills discharge similar functions
when judged on the yardstick of reliability, quality, responsibility,
confidentiality etc." The finding of the Tribunal regarding absence of
equality or parity on working between' the staff working in the corporate
offices and the other working in the mills has an important'bearing on the
B claim of the staff working in the mills. The long time that elapsed during
the pendency of the matter in this Court and before the National Industrial
Tribunal resulted in further prejudice to the claim of the staff in the rriills
because the management refusedto entertain any request for pay revision
during this period on the plea of matter being subjudice. While the claitn
C for revision of the pay scale for the staff working in the mills remained
pending, the pay scales of the staff working in the corporate offices
continued to be revised from time to time which resulted in the situation
as noticed earlier that is, from a disparity in pay scales cifthe two categories
being 159% in the year 1987, it became 642% in the year 2000.

D The fond hope of this Court that the matter will be settled equitably
before the National Industrial Tribunal did not fructify. This Court
continued its effort to see that some amicable settlement to the issue is
found. The Central Government was persuaded to rriake positive efforts·
in this direction. As a result by a notification dated 27th October, 1999
E the Government of India appointed a one man Committee of Shri S.R.
Sathyam, a retired IAS officer and a former Secretary in the Ministry of
Textile to look into the grievances of the staff and sub staff of the NTC
mills regarding their pay .structure. ,A.,s per the notification the findings of
the Committee were to be of a recommendatory nature. The Committee
F was expected to keep in view:

I. The capacity of NTC to pay wages and salaries;

II. The pay structure of other employees in the mills;

G III. The pay structure of NTC Headquarters;

IV. The pay structure of similarly .placed private mills;

V. The observations of the National Industrial Tribunal and of
H this Court.
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD. v. N.T.C.(WBAB 4 OJ LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION (ARUN KUMAR. I.( 729

The Sathyam Committee gave its report on 31st October, 2000. The A
Committee found that the different identity of workers working in the
corporate offices and workers working in the mills has always been
maintained. The pay structures in the two cadres had been different. The
pay scales for the staff in the corporate offices were substantially better
as compared to the pay scales of the staff working in the mills. Most B
importantly the Sathyam Committee endorsed the find,ing of the National
Industrial Tribunal that the two categories of employees were not perfonning
equal work. When there was no equal wort, there was no question of equal
pay. However, the Committee found that the staff working in the mills
cannot be legitimately denied some relief on account of delay in settlement
of the dispute. Some of the recommendations of the Committee are as C
under:

"23 .10 The relief to be provided can be called 'special relier . It
must count for all pay-related benefits although it can
formally be merged with pay only at the time of the next D
pay revision [Paragraph 15 .4]

23.11 The 'special relief must also count for VRS. The
Guidelines issued by the OPE for implementation of the
VRS may be amended to accommodate this provision E
[Paragraph 16.1]

23.12 The VRS itself will have to be implemented in a time-
bound manner. Otherwise, the purpose of counting the
'special relief for VRS so as to make it more attractive
may not be (fully) realized. [Paragraph 16.2.l] ·F

23.13 For purposes of computation of VRS benefits, the Gujarat
model may be adopted. [Paragraph 16.2.2.]

23.14 In the context of voluntary retirements, it will be a
thoughtful gesture to allow some flexibility regarding G
transfer of Staff/sub-Staff between 'closure' and 'revival'
mills. [Paragraph 16.2.3.]

23 .15 For the purpose of providing 'special relier, the mills of
the NTC may be divided into two categories: H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (i) 'Revival Mills' i.e., sick mills identified by the BIFR to
be revivable.

(ii) 'Closure Mills' i.e., sick mills ordered by the BIFR to be
-'.closed. [Paragraph 17.1]

B 23.16 The approach towards providing 'special relief in respect
of these. three categories can be as follows:

(i) For 'Good Mill', payment shall made with immediate
effect with reference to a 'cut-off date'
c (ii) (a) For 'Revival Mills', the benefit of the 'special relief'
shall be available immediately for purposes of YRS.

(b) If the Staff/sub-Staff chooses to stay with the Mill,
then, the 'special relief will be available with effect
D from the 'cut-off date', but only after the Mill is
revived.

(c) In case, the rehabilitation plan fails and the Mill
cannot be revived, the staff/sub-staff can, at that
E stage, opt for VRS and claim the benefit of the
special relief. Only, there can not be any claim for
arrears. "

(iii) For 'Closure Mills', the benefit of the 'special relief' shall
be available immediately to staff/sub-staff opting for
F VRS. The benefit shall not be available to staff not
- proceeding on VRS. [Paragraph 17.2]

23.17 It will be necessary to define the 'cut-off date' without
any ambiguity. It will be reasonable to identify the date
G of-the meeting in the Ministry of Textiles in which an
ad hoc. relief was proposed-as the 'cut-off date'. [Paragraph
18.1. and 18.2)

23.18 It will be more convenient to exclude the retired employees
from the-scope of the benefit proposed. [Paragraph 19.1]
H
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD."· N.T.C.(WBAB & 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION (MUN KUMAR. J.] 73}
23.19 The 'benefit order' must incorporate revised work norms. A
[Paragraph 19.2)

23.20 The 'special relief to be given can only partially neutralize
the gap in emoluments. [Paragraph 20.1]

23.21 The prescription of partial neutralization need not B
necessarily apply equally at all levels. It will be more
equitable to apply the 'special relief in a graded manner.
Towards this end, the staff/sub-staff in Mills can be
divided into four categories. [Paragraphs 20.2. l ., 20.2.2,
and 20.2.3.) C
23.22 The graded relief to be provided can be as follows:

(i) Rs.1,500 per month for category (i);

(ii) Rs.1,250 per month~for category (ii); D

(iii) Rs.1,000 per month for category (iii); and

(iv) Rs.750 per month for category (v).
[Paragraph 20.2.4.)" E
The learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the
recommendations of the Sathyam Committee have been implemented and
nothing further survives. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of
India further pointed out that various sick mills were declared as sick under
the SICA and proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial ~
Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') for rehabilitation of the
concerned mills are pending. In fact, it appears that the BIFR has already
formulated and sanctioned schemes in relation to some of the sick mills
and the sanctioned schemes are being implemented. In view of this, the
submission is that any financial burden placed on the management by G
virtue of any financial relief granted to the workers at this stage would
upset the rehabilitation scheme. Further financial burden which is not
under consideration of the rehabilitation package cannot be foisted on the
mills. Such a burden would result in, the entire scheme falling through.
For this reason it is contended that this Court should not grant any relief H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A to the workers.

The plea of discrimination in the matter of revision of pay scales
between staff working in the corporate offices/headquarters and the staff
working in the Mills is sought to be met by contending that office staff
B is governed by the CDA pattern while Mills staff is governed by the IDA
pattern.

On the other hand, the argument on behalf of the staff/sub staff of
the Mills is that great injustice has been done to the workers working in
the Mills. While their counterparts working in the corporate offices have
C been getting pay revisions in nonnal course as and when it is allowed to
other Government servants, the staff working in the mills has been deprived
of the said benefit. As a result of this, It is submitted that during the last
two decades while the cost of living has gone up several times the salary
and allowances of the workers working in the Mills have remained
D constant. The emphasis on behalf of the workers has been that there is
equality and parity in the work and working conditions of the workers of
the corporate offices and the workers working in the Mills. Therefore, it
is a case for equal pay. On this aspect however, as noticed earlier, the
National Industrial Tribunal found against staff of the Mills. The finding
E of the Tribunal was endorsed by the Sathyam Committee. In the face of
the findings of the two fact finding bodies we find ourselves unable to take
a different view on this issue. Neither necessary facts have been placed
before us nor we would like to go into such a question of fact. We have
no reason to differ with the finding of fact on this issue arrived at by the
two independent bodies. So far as the claim of the staff based on the
F principle of equal pay for equal work is concerned, it is therefore, not
tenable. When the work is not equal, the question of equal pay does not
arise. But we cannot ignore the fact that the staff/sub staff working in· the
Mills has unfortunately received a step motherly treatment. They have not
had a pay revision for years. The litigation has been pending for more than
G a decade. They have been told that the matter is subjudice. The Sathyam
Committee noticed this sorry plight of the workers. The Committee gave
some ad hoc relief to the workers. But that is not enough. The Sathyam
Committee noticed disparity in the pay scales of the two categories of
workers which was 159% in 1987 and had risen to 642% in the year 2000.
H. This is highly unjust and unfair. So far as the staff working in the mills
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD. v. N.T.C.(WBAB & 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION (ARUN KUMAR. J.J 733

is concerned we are told that all the mills are incurring losses and that does A
not justify any increase in the pay package of the workers. But the staff
working in the corporate offices of the Mills is also staff of the parent body.
If the mill is incurring losses the impact has to be on everyone connected
with the mill, in whatever capacity. You cannot have double standards.
When you give ·revised pay scales to office staff is there no financial B
burden?

In view of the fact that the nature of duties of the staff in the two
categories has been found to be not at par, parity in pay scales may not
be possible. Yet there can be no case for total denial of revision of pay C
to the staff/sub staff working in the mills.

Discrimination between the two categories of staff cannot be justified
on the basis of applicability of the CDA pattern and the IDA pattern to the
respective categories of staff. The IDA pattern cannot be taken to debar
any revision of pay scales. The Central Government has to act as a model D
employer and such specious pleas on its part are highly improper and
unjustified.

In our view, a case for relief to the staff/sub staff working in the Mills
is definitely made out. The workers deserve some relief though not parity E
of pay scales with staff/sub-staff working in corporate offices, but certainly
on account of revision of pay scales/increase of D.A. or emoluments from
time to time as and when fell due during period of nearly three decades
since when, no revision of their pay scale has been made.

Relief to what extent is the next question? Nothing has been placed F
before us nor has been brought to our notice which may enable us to spell
out the extent of relief. Even on behalf of the workers the emphasis has
been on the fact that they are entitled to revision of pay scales as in the
case of staff in the headquarters or corporate offices. Nothing more has
been urged. Even otherwise we feel we are ill-equipped to work out the G
..1·
extent of relief which can be granted to the workers in the mills. Therefore,
we direct the Central Government to take. appropriate steps which if so
required may include appointment of an expert to work out the extent of
relief which ought to be granted to the workers in the mills. Some
considera.tion may be had about the financial constraints, if any, but it H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A cannot be to the extent of virtual denial of any benefit. Before taking a
final decision in the matter, an opportunity of hearing be allowed to the
management as well as to the' workers to enable them to place their
respective stands before the decision making authority. The decision
should be taken within four months from the date of this judgment and the
B same should be implemented within two months thereafter.

The learned counsel for the Union of India relied on a recent
judgment of this Court in A.K. Bindal and Another v. Union of India, -
(2003] 5 SCC 163 in support of his contention that pay revision should
not be allowed. This·was a case of public sector company employees
C seeking revision of their pay scales. It was held that employees could not
claim such a right and such additional financial burden could not be placed
on the Government in the absence of material placed before Court
justifying the same. This case pertains to public sector undertaking namely
Fertilizer Corporation of India. This case is not attracted in the facts of
D the.present case. First, here the Government has a statutory liability for
the wages, salaries and dues of the workers. Second, pay revision was
being allowed in case of one category of workers within the same '1

organisation, while it was being denied to another category of workers,
giving rise to discrimination. Therefore, Bindal 's case has no relevance so
E far as the present case is -concerned.
So far as the argument regarding no relief being admissible to the
workers in the Mills in view of rehabilitation schemes being worked out
before the BIFR, we have to note that the proceedings have been pending
since 1993, i.e. for more than ten years. The management was all along
F fully aware of the demand of the workers of the Mills in this behalf. Their
cases have been pending in courts since much before the rehabilitation
schemes were conceived of. How long shall the concerned workers be
continued to be denied their legitimate claims? In-the various deliberations
with the workers it has been noted that rehabilitation schemes. are
G independent of any orders that may be passed by this Court. Therefore,
pendency of the rehabilitation schemes before the BIFR is not a sufficient
ground for us to deny relief to the staff/sub staff working in the Mills. As
per the provisions of Section 5 (2) (c) of the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the wages, salaries and other dues of the
H employees of the sick textile undertakings after the takeover of their
CHAIRMAN-OIM·MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.C. LTD."· N.T.C.(WBAB & 0) LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION [ARUN KUMAR. J.) 73 5

managements by the Central Government are the responsibility of the A
Central Government. The Central Government has failed to discharge its
responsibility for all these years by raising such specious pleas. The
Central Government has to discharge its responsibility de hors the BIFR
schemes. The argument therefore, is rejected.

The appeal as well as the various writ petitions and transfer petitions
B
are disposed of in above terms.

B.S. Matters disposed of.