Bharath Electronics Ltd v. Sri Gururaj R

JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Writ Appeal is filed against the Order dated

07.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.50039/2015 (L-RES).

¶2We have heard Shri. Pradeep. S. Sawkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. M. Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 52 and Smt. Preetha Mahadevan, learned Central Government counsel appearing for respondents No.53 to 55.

¶3The appellants - Bharat Electronics Limited ('BEL'), a Central Public Sector Undertaking engaged in manufacturing electronic equipment for Defence Forces, issued a nationwide advertisement dated 05.10.2005 inviting applications for the posts of Engineering Assistant and Technician 'C'. Respondents No.1 to 52 were selected as Engineering Assistant Trainees and were appointed during March-April 2006 for a period of one year on a fixed stipend of Rs.4,000/- per month. Their appointment as

Engineering Assistants was subject to successful completion of training and passing of the Gradation Test. Upon completion of training, they were appointed as Engineering Assistant with effect from 03.04.2007 in Wage Group-VII with a basic pay of Rs.4,620/- in the pre-revised pay scale and were subsequently confirmed in service with effect from 03.10.2007. The candidates appointed as Technician 'C' posts under the same advertisement were directly appointed without undergoing training and were on the regular rolls of the appellants-BEL, from the date of their joining.

¶4The earlier wage settlement, which expired on

31.12.2006, was followed by negotiations between the appellants and the Union, culminating a Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.05.2010 and an Office Order dated 21.05.2010 revising the pay scales of non-executive employees retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2007. Since respondents No.1 to 52 were trainees as on

31.12.2006 and were receiving only a stipend, they were not eligible for the special pay extended to non-executive

employees, who were on the rolls of the appellants-BEL as on 31.12.2006 and continued as such on 01.01.2007. Following their gradation in April 2007, their pay was fixed at the minimum of the revised pay scale of Rs.10050 - 3% - 26400. Alleging discrimination on the ground that ITI qualified - Technician 'C' employees were drawing higher pay despite possessing lower qualifications. Respondents No.1 to 52 issued a Legal Notice dated 16.06.2011 seeking parity in salary and consequential arrears. The appellants by reply Notice dated 01.07.2011, rejected the claim and clarified that respondents No.1 to 52 were trainees till completion of their training period and were paid only a stipend during that period and upon their appointment as Engineering Assistant in April 2007, their pay was correctly fixed in the pre-revised scale and thereafter in the revised scale of Rs.10050 - 3% - 25450.

¶5Respondents No.1 to 52, claiming disparity in wages and service benefits, filed an application dated

17.02.2012 before respondent No.55 seeking conciliation of the Industrial Dispute. By communication dated

07.12.2012, respondent No.55 informed them that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an individual dispute could be raised only in matters relating to retrenchment, dismissal or termination and as their grievance pertained to pay and benefits, the dispute had to be raised through the concerned Union.

¶6Instead of pursuing the remedy through the Union or approaching the Labour Court, respondents No.1 to 52 approached this Court after a delay of more than three years by filing a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to pay wages and other financial benefits including additional increment, fitment benefits, special pay, Group-IV to Group-VII benefits by maintaining the Basic Pay as per of the Notification dated 05.10.2005 from their date of appointment, that is, 03.04.2006 along with all consequential benefits.

¶7The learned Single Judge held that although the petitioners fall within the definition of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India as the petitioners had no efficacious or alternative remedy. It was observed that an individual wage dispute was not maintainable under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the remedy under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act was confined to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. Since the Conciliation Officer had rejected their claim as not maintainable and the Trade Union had declined to espouse their cause, the petitioners could not be left remediless.

¶8The learned Single Judge further observed that the petitioners were appointed as Engineering Assistant Trainees through a regular selection process pursuant to the Notification dated 05.10.2005 and upon successful completion of training, were absorbed as Engineering Assistants without any further selection process. It was held that the training period formed a part of their service and was liable to be treated as duty for the purposes of pay, increments and other consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions in the case

of State of Kerala and Another v. N.V. George by order dated

30.01.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.2018/2000 and Lekshmanan v. State of Kerala reported in 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 309. Consequently, the learned Single Judge held that respondent No.4/BEL was not justified in reckoning the petitioners' date of entry into service as 05.04.2007 instead of 03.04.2006.

¶9The learned Single Judge further observed that the incorrect fixation of the date of entry into service resulted in an anomaly whereby Diploma-holder Engineering Assistants received lesser wages than ITI-qualified Technician Grade 'C' employees. Since a wage revision cannot result in reduction of salary, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to have their service reckoned from 03.04.2006 and to receive all consequential benefits, including revised wages, increments, additional increments, fitment benefits and special pay. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated

28.02.2013 and

07.12.2013 were quashed, and consequential reliefs were granted.

¶10The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that admittedly, respondents No.1 to 52 are non-executive employees of the appellants/BEL and fall within the definition of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, they were required to avail the statutory and alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act rather than directly invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled that the writ jurisdiction being a discretionary remedy, a party bypassing an alternate remedy must demonstrate compelling reasons for such invocation, particularly, where the dispute involves disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Though, the learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.16.5 of the impugned judgment, recorded a finding that the petitioners are workmen and that the dispute pertains to wages, the writ petition was nevertheless allowed without properly considering the availability of an efficacious or alternative remedy. Respondents No.1 to 52 had earlier approached the Labour Commissioner under Section 12 of

the Industrial Disputes Act in their individual capacity, but, the proceedings were closed with liberty to raise the dispute through their representative Trade Union, as individual disputes of this nature were not maintainable. Therefore, respondents No.1 to 52 ought to have pursued the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act through the Trade Union instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction.

¶11It is further contended that admittedly, the Negotiating Trade Unions ('NTUs') including respondents No.1 to 52 entered into a MoU dated 08.05.2010 with the appellants/BEL, providing for wage revision with effect from 01.01.2007 and remaining operative for a period of ten years. The said MoU was executed in full and final settlement of all demands raised under the Charter of Demands, and the NTUs waived their right to raise any further monetary claims during the subsistence of the settlement. Therefore, respondents No.1 to 52 were bound by the terms of the MoU and the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected their claim.

¶12The Apex Court in the case of Herbertsons Limited v. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited reported in AIR 1977 SC 322, has held that a settlement arrived must be viewed as a package deal and cannot be dissected to accept certain benefits while challenging other terms. Since the revised pay scales impugned in the writ petition were implemented pursuant to the binding MoU, respondents No.1 to 52 cannot belatedly contend that such revision was effected without notice to the workmen.

¶13It is further contended that admittedly, the writ petition was instituted after an inordinate delay of nearly five years from the date of the impugned pay refixation order dated 21.05.2010. Respondents No.1 to 52 failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court after such an unreasonable and unexplained delay. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, has held that belated service-related claims are liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches in writ proceedings.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, having overlooked the binding nature of the settlement and settled principles of industrial jurisprudence, deserves to be set aside.

¶14The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on the following decisions:- • Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and Others v. Harkesh Chand and Others reported in (2013) 2 SCC 29;

• Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Krishna Kant and Others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 75; • P. Virudhachalam and Others v. Management of Lotus Mills and Another reported in (1998) 1 SCC 650; • Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombay and Another v. Balmer Lawire and Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 663; • Herbertsons Limited v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Others, reported in

(1976) 4 SCC 736;

• Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. Their Workmen, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 627; • U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264; and • Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and Another v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 725.

¶15The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 52 contend that respondents No.1 to 52 were appointed as Engineering Assistant Trainees and upon completion of their training, were confirmed without undergoing any further selection process. Hence, they are entitled to reckon their service from the date of their initial appointment as trainees, that is, 03.04.2006. It is contended that exclusion of the training period has resulted in Diploma holders receiving lesser pay than ITI-qualified employees, leading to an inequitable pay structure. It is further submitted that a wage revision cannot result in a reduction of pay and they have no efficacious or alternative remedy, as their dispute before

the Conciliation Officer was rejected as not maintainable and their representative - Union has refused to espouse their cause owing to their limited number.

¶16The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 52 have placed reliance on the following decisions:- • The Union of India and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others, by order dated

26.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.26954/2024 (GM-POL);

• Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 428; • Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104; • Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India and Others, reported in

(1999) 6 SCC 667; • Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and Others v. Harkesh Chand and Others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 29; • State of Kerala and Another v. N.V. George, by order dated 30.01.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.2018/2000, and

• Lekshmanan v. State of Kerala, reported in 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 309.

¶17We have considered the contentions advanced, the pleadings and the documents produced. The question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that the training undergone by the private respondents was liable to be reckoned as service or duty requires interference. It is clear that the initial Notification for appointment issued was for the post of Engineering Assistant. The qualification described was 3 years full-time diploma in Engineering plus one year apprenticeship training. The Advertisement which was published in the Deccan Herald dated

05.10.2005 specifically stated that diploma holders in electronic and mechanical disciplines will be inducted as Engineering Assistant Trainees and will undergo training for a period of one year and will be paid a stipend. On successful completion of training and passing the gradation test, they will be placed in the pay scale indicated in Column No.5. The offer of appointment issued to the writ petitioners

would also show that they were appointed specifically as Engineering Assistant Trainee.

¶18The terms and conditions specifically included the following Clauses:- "3.0 On Being found medically fit by our Medical Authorities and on appointment, you will be required to undergo training for a period of ONE YEAR in CTD or in any other SBU/CSG as decided by the Company. This period may be reduced or extended at the discretion of the Management. On completion of the first two months of training, you will be subjected to a break-in period test/assessment designed to assess your aptitude for the training. In case you fail in the break-in-period test, you will be discharged from training without notice and no further opportunity to appear for the test again will be given.

4.0 You will be subjected to Final Gradation Test towards the end of the ONE YEAR training period. If you fail in the Final Gradation Test, youwill be discharged from training without any notice and no further opportunity to appear for test again would be given.

5.0 During the training period, you will be paid a stipend of Rs.4000/- per month.

6.0 Your conduct and aptitude for the course will be carefully watched during the period of your training i.e., ONE YEAR and if your conduct and / or

performance is /are not found to be satisfactory at any time during the said period of training, you are liable to be discharged from training without any notice.

7.0 After completion of training if called upon to serve the Company, you will be governed by the Rules, Regulations of service and Staninding Orders of the Company.

8.0 On successful completion of training and on passing the Gradation Test you may be absorbed as ENGINEERING ASSISTANT in WF-VII, Career Path-VI in the scale of Rs.4620-135-5970-140-8350/- plus allowances admissible."

¶19Further, Annexure 'C' series of documents produced would clearly show that appointment orders were issued in April 2007 after completion of one year's training. Thereafter, confirmation orders were also issued in October 2007. We further notice that the Industrial Settlement was arrived at between the Workmen and Management of the appellants on 08.05.2010. The settlement specifically provided that it will cover all regular workmen in Wage Group-I to Wage Group-X, who were on the rolls of the Company as on 01.01.2007 and who continue to be on the rolls of the Company on the date of

the settlement. Therefore, it is clear that only those employees who were in Wage Group-I to X, who were on the rolls of the Company as on 01.01.2007, would be covered by the settlement. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were trainees drawing a stipend of Rs.4,000/- as on

01.01.2007. It is only in April 2007, that their appointments as trainees metamorphose into a regular appointment on a pay scale. In other words, they became regular employees of the appellants - Company only from the date of their regular appointment as provided in Annexure 'C'. This regular appointment was later confirmed by Annexure 'D' series of orders in October 2007. Therefore, the clear case is that as on 01.01.2007, the writ petitioners are not regular employees but are only Trainees in the Company.

¶20Now, we shall proceed to examine the judgments relied on by both sides. In Lekshmanan's case (supra), the Kerala High Court had specifically found a distinction between an in-service training and a training which would be a condition precedent or a qualification for

a regular appointment. In the said case, it was on a finding that the employees were appointed regularly and then deputed for "in-service training", that the Court held that they are entitled to count their service from the initial date of appointment. In Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited's case (supra), also the facts were that the training was imparted after appointment to the post. The Court specifically found that in U.P. SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh reported in (2004) 8 SCC 402, the Apex Court had considered a similar situation and had held that the position of an apprentice remains an apprentice trainee and that during the period of training they will not be treated as workman. Further, the Court after considering several precedents on the point held as follows:- "28. We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncements solely for the purpose that an apprentice does not have a statutory right to claim an appointment and the employer is not under any statutory obligation to give him employment. However, if the terms of the contract of apprenticeship lay down a condition that on successful completion of apprenticeship an employer would offer him an employment, then it is obligatory on his part to do so. In the absence of such a

condition, there is no obligation. It depends on the terms of the contract. In the case at hand, as the letter of appointment would show, the employer had only stated that on successful completion of the training, the apprentice may be appointed as Plant Attendant/Technician Grade II. Thus, it was not a mandatory term incorporated in the agreement casting an obligation on the employer to appoint him."

¶21It is therefore clear that the question whether the period of training is to be treated as regular service would have to be answered taking note of the facts and circumstances of individual cases. In the instant case, the appointment of the writ petitioners was specifically as Assistant Engineer Trainees as was provided in the initial Notification itself. There was no automatic right for appointment on completion of the period of training. The appointment order makes it clear that in case the employer finds a reason to do so, the training can be terminated without notice. Further, there is a provision for assessment of the suitability after the training period and regular appointment is liable to be offered only to persons meeting the requirements. In the instant case, such

regular appointment on a scale of pay was offered only in April 2007.

¶22In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the finding of learned Single Judge that the employees are entitled to reckon their initial appointment itself as regular appointment on a scale of pay is a factually incorrect finding. There was no scale of pay appointment till April, 2007 and as such, the writ petitioners would not be entitled to claim the benefit of the Industrial Settlement which specifically provided that only those persons working in scales of pay from Grade-I to X, as on 01.01.2007, would be entitled to the same. In view of our findings on these points, no other question is required to be considered.

¶23In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge was unjustified. The writ appeal is therefore liable to succeed.

¶24Accordingly:-

(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The Order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.50039/2015, is set aside.

(iii) Writ Petition No.50039/2015 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

cp*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO.495 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. BHARATH ELECTRONICS LTD. (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES MINISTRY OF DEFENCE) JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NOW REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) 2. THE MANAGER (PERSONNEL/CENTRAL) BHARATH ELECTRONICS LTD. (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES MINSITRY OF DEFENCE) JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER HR/CENTRAL/ A & F/CMS …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. SRI GURURAJ R S/O A K RAICHUR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS STAFF NO.213272 NO.NA122 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 2. SRI JAYASHANKAR B. MOGER S/O BALINDRA G. MOGER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS STAFF NO.213306 NO.NA-330 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 3. SRI RAJESHA S. M. S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS STAFF NO.213228 NO.NA-293 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 4. SRI RAMESH KUMAR P. S/O M. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS STAFF NO.213240 NEAR GAYATHRI TEMPLE KUPPUSWAMY MUDALIAR L O, BANGARPET-563 114 5. SRI RAJESH KUMAR R. S/O RAMACHANDRAN R. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS STAFF NO.213239 NO.98 NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 6. SRI SATISH KUMAR S. S/O SHANMUGAM C. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS STAFF NO.213253 NO.NA 358 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 7. SRI ANIL KUMAR H. P. S/O PRAKASH H. R. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS STAFF NO.213262 NO.B-141, BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 8. SRI RAGHU B. S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS STAFF NO.213254 NO.3, 1ST CROSS ANUBHAVA NAGAR NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 072 9. SRI SURESH KUMAR G. S/O GANAPATHY S. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS STAFF NO.213231, NO.9 UMA NILAYAM 12TH 'D' CROSS II MAIN AMARAVATHI NAGAR BANGARPET-563 114 10. SRI MANJUNATHA K. S/O KALYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS STAFF NO.213259 NO.156 SANNAKKI BAYALU VRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560 079 11. SRI.NAGESHA S. S. S/O SUBBANNA S. R. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS STAFF NO.213256 NO.NA-206 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013. 12. SRI CHIDAMBARA R. S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH PATEL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS STAFF NO.213273 NO.B 04 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013. 13. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA S. VERNEKAR S/O SHRIKANTH VARNEKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS STAFF NO.213304 NO. NA-165 BEL COLONY JALAHALI POST BENGALURU -560 013 14. ROHINI R. P. D/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS STAFF NO.213227 NO.M-21 3RD FLOOR 3RD MAIN ROAD 8TH CROSS L. N. PURAM BENGALURU-560 021. 15. SRI RAGHAVENDRA H. M. S/O MAHARUDRAPPA H. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS STAFF NO.213248 NO.NA 258 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 16. MAMATHA V. D/O VENKATAPPA Y. C. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS STAFF NO.213232 NO.NA-291 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 17. VIMALA Y. W/O VIJAY KUMAR H. M. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS STAFF NO.213279 NO.26, 9TH 'A' CROSS BASAVESHWARNAGAR NEAR GARDEN VILLAS NAGARBHAVI ROAD BENGALURU-560 072 18. CHETHANA S. R. S/O RAMACHANDRA SETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS STAFF NO.213276 NO.B-19 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 19. SRI YALLALINGA S/O AMBARAYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS STAF NO.213242 NO.B-10 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 20. SRI SELVA KUMAR M. S/O MANI P. T. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS STAFF NO.213257 NO.B-07 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 21. POORNIMA B. R. D/O RAMACHAR B. P. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS STAFF NO.213265 NO.B-114 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 22. SWETHA B. N. W/O NAGENDRA SWAMY B. N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS STAFF NO.213247 NO.150 BASAVESHWARA NILAYA 11TH CROSS 3RD MAIN BAPUJI NAGAR MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026 23. SRI CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY G. S/O VENKATARAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS STAFF NO.213263 NO.NA 204 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 013 24. SRI ALI HUSSAIN S/O BABU MIYA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS STAFF NO.213251 NO.B-138 BEL COLONY JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU-