Discrimination based on Date of Joining

Discrimination based on Date of Joining

Notice of Change - Industrial Disputes Act 1947

The question is whether discrimination in fixing different working hours to typist-cumcomputer clerks appointed after 01.11.1996 and those appointed prior to that date, in which the later appointees have to work for 7 ½ hours as against earlier employees whose working hours was 6 ½ hours, is hit by Article 14 of the constitution.

The Court held that so long as the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things and the differentia has the rational relation to the object sought to be achieved the classification will not per se violate Article 14 of the constitution. 

The Court held that it is not prudent to insist absolute equality when there are diverse situations and contingencies and in this case the MPT took an administrative decision to bring uniformity in outdoor and indoor working hours of employees to be abreast with technology, in this competitive world by giving service to port users more efficiently. The MPT has a case for survival while competing with Pvt. Ports in an age of privatization and globalization. The Supreme Court upheld the classification made by MPT.

Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr. dated 15-11-2010

“It has been repeatedly held by this Court that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation or for the purposes of adoption of a policy of the legislature or the executive, provided the policy takes care to reasonably classify persons for achieving the purpose of the policy and it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well defined class. It is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the new policy does not apply to other persons. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of its decisions, two conditions must be fulfilled; 

(1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and 

(2) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object ought to be achieved by the statute in question, vide Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration

“There may be several tests to decide whether a classification or differentiation is reasonable or not. One test which we are laying down and which will be useful in deciding this case, is: is it conducive to the functioning of modern society? If it is then it is certainly reasonable and rational.” 

“In the present case, as we have noted, the purpose of the classification was to make the activities of the Port competitive and efficient. With the introduction of privatization and setting up private Ports, the respondent had to face competition. Also, it wanted to rationalize its activities by having uniform working hours for its indoor and outdoor establishment employees, while at the same time avoiding labour disputes with employees appointed before 01.11.1996.”

"The policy decision of the Port cannot be said to cause any prejudice to the interest of the personnel recruited after 1.11.1996 because before their recruitment they were clearly given to understand as to what would be their working hours, in case they accept the appointment. In our opinion the introduction of the new policy was a bonafide decision of the Port, and the acceptance of the conditions with open eyes by the appellants and the recruits after 1.11.1996 means that they can now have no grievance. It is well settled that Courts should not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions.”

Refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr.,  dt. 9-10-2009