NEW DELHI: A Delhi court, while dismissing the pleas of ex-workmen against Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, the publishers of the Times Group, has said once the employees have accepted the criteria and methodology adopted by the management with regard to the wage board awards they cannot later find fault with it.
The court made the observations, as it dismissed over 80 pleas seeking direction to the firm to increase their wages as per the pay scales prescribed under the Majithia Wage Board Award.
To my mind, once the criteria/methodology adopted by the management stands admitted by the workmen, later on, no fault can be found by the workmen with the above said criteria adopted by the management in implementing the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board, Labour Court presiding judge Raj Kumar said.
The judge accepted the arguments made by senior advocate Raj Birbal and advocate Raavi Birbal, appearing for the management, that the workmen executed various letters and receipts acknowledging they had received their full and final settlement amounts from the management.
The court said the claimants admitted during their cross-examination they had received their revised wages and arrears under the Majithia Wage Board Award with effect from April 1, 2014 till the date of their retirement.
They have also admitted that they have received their entire emoluments i.e. their full and final dues without any protest of any kind such as their gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc.
Some of the workmen are not aware as to what was their initial designation or last designation.
"Some of the workmen have categorically admitted that they were given due promotions as per the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board Award," the court said.
The court noted the workmen have themselves admitted the criteria and methodology adopted by the management in determining the revised salary and arrears as per the wage board award, and the employees' union of the workmen also expressed its gratitude to the management for complying with the recommendations of the Board.
In its 53-page order passed on October 10, the court said the grant of ACD (Assured Career Development)/promotions was not automatic but subject to the satisfactory completion of services.
"I have no hesitation to hold that the grant of ACD during the block period of every ten years is not automatic but the same is subject to the satisfactory performance of the duties by the workmen and therefore, the present applications, so far as the grant of ACD is concerned, are not maintainable," the judge said.
The court also said the management had issued various letters over time to some of the petitioners in respect of their unsatisfactory services and disciplinary actions against them.
The labour court dealt with as many as 86 pleas of the workmen having similar issues.
The complainants had sought an increase in the amount they received following their retirement, asserting they were entitled to the 'claim amount' on account of arrears of wages and/or interim relief as per the Majithia Wage Board recommendations, which was allegedly denied to them by the company.
As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the workmen have utterly failed to show as to how their basic salary has been drastically reduced after the fixation of the revised pay scales under the Majithia Wage Board.
"I am of the opinion that it has been rightly argued by the management that as per clause 20(i) of the Majithia Wage Board Award, no employee was to be given more than the maximum of the revised pay scales," the judge said.
It said the claimants admitted in their cross examination they have not neutralized the amount.
In the opinion of this court, the management has rightly argued that the claim for fixation of the new basic beyond the maximum limit of the revised pay scales is not in consonance with the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board, it said.
"I am also of the opinion that the management has further rightly argued that it has duly considered the Variable Pay while deciding the employee's HRA, transport allowances, etc., and that DA has to be given as per table IV criteria according to the Majithia Wage Board, the judge said.
The court noted the claimants had filed the petitions after their retirement.
It said the petitioners failed to specify their claim as to how their basic salary had been drastically reduced after the fixation of the revised pay scales as per the Majithia Wage Board Award.