Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 20 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Nihar Ranjan Kanjilal & Ors. (mint workers) and the Bombay Mint Employees' Federation; Respondents – National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, and the Union of India.
  • Background: Mint workers sought a 19% salary increase as a condition precedent to the increase of weekly working hours from 37.5 to 44 hours. The claim was originally upheld by the National Industrial Tribunal (Award dated 30 July 2020) and earlier by a Single Judge of this Court (order dated 20 May 2025).
  • Procedural History: The appeal (FMA 766 of 2025) was filed against the May 2025 judgment. The Bombay Mint Employees' Federation was impleaded as an added appellant (CAN 2 of 2025). Hearing concluded on 15 July 2026; judgment pronounced on 20 July 2026.
  • Key Dates in the dispute:
  • 1 Oct 1951 – Working hours increased to 40 hrs/week without salary rise; workers filed PWA Case No. 353 of 1951.
  • 13 Aug 1952 – Payment of Wages Authority ordered refund of deducted salary.
  • 16 Jan 1988 – Calcutta Mint issued notice under Sec. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act to raise hours to 44 hrs/week.
  • 15 Apr 1998 – Joint Action Committee met with General Managers of Calcutta, Bombay and Andhra Pradesh mints; agreement to work 44 hrs/week and to seek 19% salary hike from the Department of Expenditure.
  • 5 May 1998 – Conciliation officer recorded the settlement in a report.
  • 8 Feb 2001 – Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Department of Expenditure to decide the 19% hike claim.
  • 15 May 2001 – Department of Expenditure rejected the 19% increase.
  • 6 Jun 2005 – Conciliation officers reported failure to settle.
  • 6 Jun 2005 – Ministry of Labour referred the matter to the National Industrial Tribunal.
  • 30 Jul 2020 – Tribunal award upheld the workers' claim that the earlier Payment of Wages decisions did not bind the Tribunal and that the General Managers could not promise a 19% hike.

Findings of the National Industrial Tribunal (30 July 2020)

  • The earlier Payment of Wages decisions did not operate as res judicata for the 19% salary claim.
  • General Managers could only refer the demand to the Department of Expenditure; no enforceable promissory estoppel existed.
  • The minutes of the 15 Apr 1998 meeting and the 5 May 1998 conciliation report constituted a settlement for 44‑hour work and salary as per the 5th Pay Commission.
  • No fresh notice under Sec. 9A was required; the Factories Act permits up to 48 hrs/week.

Court Analysis

a) Settlement sanctity

  • The court emphasized that a settlement reached during conciliation, recorded by a conciliation officer, carries greater legal weight than a private written agreement (Sec. 2(p) Industrial Disputes Act).
  • Citing Jhagrakhan Collieries and related precedents, the court noted that such settlements bind all parties, their successors, and future workers (Sec. 18).

b) Positive conduct amounts to acceptance

  • The conciliation officer’s report of 5 May 1998 confirmed the workers’ agreement to work 44 hrs/week and to receive benefits under the 5th Pay Commission.
  • The workers have not terminated the settlement; therefore, they cannot selectively enforce only the salary‑increase clause while rejecting the work‑hour obligation.

c) Notice under Sec. 9A after withdrawal

  • The court rejected the argument that the Sec. 9A notice remained operative; the strike withdrawal and subsequent settlement rendered the notice infructuous.

d) Pay Commission authority

  • Pay commissions, constituted under Article 73, have jurisdiction to examine and recommend both salary structures and working hours. Their recommendations are binding once accepted by the Government.
  • The 4th and 5th Pay Commission terms of reference included examination of “conditions of service,” which encompass working hours (Item 4 of the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act).

e) Res judicata not strictly applicable

  • The court held that industrial adjudication does not strictly follow civil‑law res judicata; changing economic conditions justify revisiting working‑hour issues.

f) Working‑hour limits and public interest

  • Under the Factories Act, 1948 (Secs. 51, 54, 65), the maximum permissible work is 48 hrs/week and 9 hrs/day. Raising hours to 44 hrs/week is within this limit and serves public interest.

g) Conventional past hours are a contingent contract

  • The historic 37 hrs 30 min/week schedule is not immutable; the employer may alter it provided statutory limits are respected and the change is justified.

h) Legitimate expectation

  • Procedural legitimate expectation was satisfied: workers were heard, the meeting minutes were recorded, and the conciliation report was filed.
  • Substantive legitimate expectation does not apply because the State never made a binding promise of a 19% hike; the phrase “favourable consideration” is merely discretionary.

i) Scope of judicial review on Pay‑Commission recommendations

  • Judicial review of Pay‑Commission recommendations is limited; courts will not substitute their judgment for the expert body’s expertise.

j) Overtime vs salary increase

  • Overtime allowance (double rate) applies only to work beyond normal hours. Once hours are regularised to 44 hrs/week, salary scales, not overtime rates, determine remuneration.
  • The workers cannot claim the overtime rate as a basis for a 19% salary increase; doing so would amount to unjust enrichment.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed FMA 766 of 2025, affirming the National Industrial Tribunal’s award.
  • All pending connected applications are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Industrial Relations, Salary Policy