The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to look into the alleged “curtailment and reduction” of salaries and benefits of sugar mill workers in Uttrakhand. The workmen claimed that the 2018 payscale revision, which was upheld by the Uttrakhand High Court in March, was “arbitrary and discriminatory.”
A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan sought response from the Uttrakhand government, its Cane Commisoner and others on a batch of appeals filed by various sugar mill trade unions, including UP Rajya Chini Mills Nigam Karamchi Union and Chini Mills Mazdoor Sabha.
The single judge of the HC on February 11 had ordered constitution of a wage board within four months to look into the issue and asked the board to submit its report within eight months. The single judge had also protected the interests of the workmen against recovery of wages if found to have been paid in excess. The single judge’s order was not interfered by the Division Bench of the HC.
Challenging the Uttrakhand HC’s March 25 judgment that upheld the curtailment and reduction of the salary of approximately 2,800 workmen employed in vacuum pan sugar factories across the state, various trade unions representing the workmen of different sugar factories told the SC that the benefits conferred in December 2016 were arbitrarily suspended by a letter dated June 12, 2018, issued by the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, to the Commissioner, Cane Development and Sugar lndustry Department, Uttarakhand.
The appeals stated that the HC while passing the judgment failed to notice that the Secretary had no power or jurisdiction to issue the letter to keep the statutory order of 2016 in abeyance. “The letter was merely an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, purporting to suspend the OM dated December 29, 2016, which itself was issued in exercise of statutory powers under Section 3(b) of the State Industrial Disputes Act”, the appeals stated.
They pointed out that the formula for wage revision, as recommended by the Tripartite Committee and adopted in the gazetted OM of December 29, 2016, was carefully and meticulously crafted after due deliberation. The sugar mills had never raised any objection to the formula itself, nor had it been their case that there was any error in the computation or structure of the revised wages, senior counsel Ravindra Kumar Raizada, and counsel Divya Roy contended, adding that the HC overlooked that the employers had never raised any industrial dispute against the 2016 OM.
According to appeals, the HC misdirected itself by drawing a comparison between the wages of employees of sugar factories in neighbouring states like Uttar Pradesh, without appreciating that the 2016 OM had been issued pursuant to the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee, which had already considered the demands, concerns, and perspectives of all stakeholders through a structured and consultative process.
Moreover, the State's justification that it was necessary to revise wages on account of financial difficulties allegedly being faced by the sugar factories was totally misplaced, Raizada argued, further adding that these same factories were simultaneously paying the benefit of the Sixth Pay and Seventh Pay Commission pay scales to various employees, including those from the centralised services of Uttarakhand Sugar Mills, such as assistant engineers, manufacturing chemists, cane managers, chief engineers ,etc even though these employees were not state government employees.
The sugar mills had told the HC that wages paid to workers in Uttrakhand in some cases were higher by 98% to the wages paid in Uttar Pradesh and in most cases, it was higher about 50%.
While these personnel were being paid huge salaries resulting in a substantial financial outlay, the state government had adopted an entirely discriminatory and arbitrary approach towards the workmen, citing financial constraints as a pretext to withdraw the statutory benefits, the workmen said.
