Judgment:
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. The petitioner is a Trade-union of workmen which is seekingto enforce the claim to its members employed in 223 depots of FoodCorporation of India ('FCI' for short) under the Direct PaymentSystem (hereinafter referred to as 'DPS') for payment of wages at parwith departmental workmen of FCI. It is contended that the directpayment system having been given a go-bye for good and directrelationship of employer and employee having been establishedbetween the labour force governed by DPS and the Management, theRespondent-Corporation is under an obligation to accord the sametreatment to them as is being given to the departmentalised/absorbedworkmen. It is submitted that the nature, type of work and the modalities of carrying out the handling work by the DPs workers andthe departmental workers in the various depots of FCI is the same andtherefore denial of equal wages and other service benefits to the DPSworkers is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In short, this petition under Article 32 is basedon the plea of equal pay for equal work. A writ to direct theRespondent-Corporation to grant same wages, allowances, status andother benefits to the handling workers employed on DPS in 223depots as are available to departmentalised handling workers. Certainother ancillary reliefs are sought for. A comparative chart showingthe wages and other fringe benefits available to these two categoriesof workers has been given in Exhibit P-8. In the course of thearguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner hasendeavoured to develop her argument founded on equal pay for equal work by seeking support from various decisions of this Court. Muchreliance has also been placed on the Award dated 1.4.1991 of theNational Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. rendered in the context of similar relief claimed by DPs workmen of 55 depots.
2. In the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, itis not disputed that the nature of work done by the DPS workers and the departmental workers is substantially the same. But, it iscontended that the quantum of work done by the handling Mazdoorunder DPS is not identical to the turnover of work of departmentallabour. In this context, it is pointed out in paragraph 5 that the workload varies from depot to depot and even within the same depot thereare variations in working pattern in the light of such factors as volumeof procurement, off-take of food grains from the godowns etc. Theseasonal character of food handling operation in various depots has also been stressed. While asserting that in view of the large variationsin the working pattern and work load, the contract labour system isbetter suited to the needs of FCI, it is pointed out that on account ofthe agitation launched by the Workers union, the Management had noalternative but to agree for abolition of contract labour system andintroducing DPS or 'no work no pay' system in lieu of contractlabour. Reference has been made to various settlements arrived atbetween FCI Management and FCI workers union in this connection.The initiative in this regard was taken pursuant to the understandingreached for the first time on 23.5.1973, according to which thedepartmental labour system as well as the direct payment systemcould be maintained depending on the local requirements. It is stated that except at Ghevra depot, nowhere departmental labour as well asDPS labour is engaged simultaneously in the same depot/godown. Itis pointed out that as against 223 depots mentioned in the writpetition, 215 depots are governed by DPS and 7 depots in A.P. Stateare actually functioning under no work no pay system. It is claimedthat each depot is and is being treated as separate establishment and isbeing run by the respective labour systems viz., departmental, DPS,no work no pay. Only in Ghevra depot, the dual labour system isexisting. It is reiterated that DPS system of labour has beenintroduced in various depots pursuant to mutual understandingbetween the Management and labour unions and their terms andconditions are regulated as per mutual negotiations and settlements.Giving the details of mode of payment in paragraph 9, it is stated as follows:-
'Under this system the payment is made to theLabourers on the basis of above schedule of ratesagreed between FCI Management and thepetitioner Union. These workers are piece-ratedworkers and whatever the work done by them on the basis of Schedule of Rates, the payment isreleased to them subject to minimum guaranteedwages which is at present Rs. 107/- of HandlingLabour per day. The Schedule of Rates andMinimum Guaranteed wages are revised afterevery 2 years on the basis of the increase in the All India Consumer Price Index, as per settlementsigned between FCI Management and petitionerUnion.'
It is then pointed out that the FCI workers union has already raised anindustrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)New Delhi, wherein the issue of parity of wages has been focused.Moreover, it is stated that individual DPS labourers of about 46 depotshave filed petitions in Delhi High Court seeking the same relief. Asregards the award of National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, pertainingto 55 DPS depots, it is stated that the award was challenged in theDelhi High Court both by the Workers union and the Managementand the writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court on 1.8.1995in terms of the settlement dated 1.11.1994. Therefor, the said awarddoes not hold the field.
3. On the above grounds, which were reiterated in the course ofarguments by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, it is contended that the principle of equal pay for equalwork has no application here. It is stressed, the need the legitimacyof direct payment system has been recognised by all concerned andthe system itself has come into vogue as a result of negotiations andagreements between the Union of Workmen and the Management.
4. Having regard to the pleading of the parties and the factualcontroversy involved, we are of the view that it would not beappropriate for this Court to record its conclusions on merits. In orderto give effect to the principle of equal pay of equal work, which is nodoubt a constitutional obligation implicit in Article 14, we have toenter into the factual arena and embark on an investigation of disputedfacts such as the work load and the working pattern in various depotsof the Food Corporation of India. The mere fact that the qualitativenature of work performed by DPS workers and the departmentalworkers is the same, is not conclusive. Other aspects highlighted inthe counter-affidavit having a bearing on the volume and duration ofwork in the depots have to be gone into. Incidentally, thejustification and expediency of continuing the Direct Payment Systemwhich has been recognized by various settlements has to be lookedinto. A comparative study of the working pattern in various depots,the overall job requirement sand the overall effect it will have on thebody of workmen as a whole and the Management, are all matters thatmay be relevant to consider. It is not a case of mere application of alegal principle to the admitted or undeniable facts. But, it depends onconcrete facts brought out in evidence. When the same issue is being agitated by the petitioner-union by raising an industrial dispute, it isall the more inappropriate for this Court to make an adjudication onmerits in writ petition filed under Article 32. The award of theNational Industrial Tribunal on which reliance was placed virtuallystands superseded by the settlement arrived at between the partiesculminating in the disposal of the writ petition challenging the saidaward in terms of such settlement.
5. We, therefore, decline to grant any relief under Article 32 of theConstitution. We leave it to the petitioner to agitate the issue beforeappropriate Forum. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Thedismissal of this petition shall not be construed as an expression ofany view on the merits of the respective contentions.