Isabella Mariam

In a recent judgment, the High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side), Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), dismissed a writ application challenging the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, which denied 19% compensation to the workers of India Government Mint for the increase in weekly working hours from 37.5 to 44 hours. The judgment, delivered on 20 March 2025, confirmed the Tribunal's view that the demand for compensation was unjustified and the management's decision was lawful.

The petitioners, represented by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union and others, filed a writ application seeking a direction to recall the impugned award dated 30 July 2020 issued by the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, in N.T. Case No. 03 of 2005. The central dispute arose from a proposal to increase the weekly working hours from 37.5 hours to 44 hours, following recommendations of the 4th and subsequently the 5th Pay Commissions.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Judgment, Restores Seniority List, States “Assistant Engineers May Opt Between Degree and Diploma Quotas”

The management issued a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 16 January 1988, proposing the enhancement of working hours based on the 4th Pay Commission's recommendations. This proposal was met with resistance from all three Mint units (Calcutta, Hyderabad, Mumbai), which formed a Joint Action Committee to oppose the move using peaceful trade union methods.

The 5th Pay Commission, in its report, recorded at paragraph 66.34:

"We do not find any preponderant reasons for maintaining the status quo in regard to working hours only in the three Mints at Calcutta, Hyderabad and Mumbai. This would also be discriminatory and contrary to the basic principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is our considered view that the 44-hour week should be strictly enforced in these three Mints. The substantial improvements in the scales of pay and other benefits that we have recommended would be applicable in the case of the Mint employees only if the working hours are increased to 44 hours per week."

Pursuant to this, and by directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta, the issue of granting 19% compensation for the differential increase in working hours was forwarded to the Ministry of Finance. The Finance Secretary concluded:

"There is no justification for grant of any compensation on account of increase in working hrs. in the Govt. of India Mint from 37 ½ hours per week to 44 hours per week. Further, for the period from 1.1.96 to 26.5.1998 when the Mints did not work for 44 hours per week, the pay should be proportionately depressed."

Disagreements over this conclusion led to references to various Regional Labour Commissioners, who submitted failure reports. Subsequently, the Central Government constituted the National Industrial Tribunal on 6 June 2005, which adjudicated the dispute under the reference:

"Whether the action of the management of India Government Mint in not granting of 19% compensation for the increased working hours from 37 ½ hours per week to 44 hours per week (as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission) is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

The Tribunal, in its award dated 30 July 2020, concluded:

"The workmen of India Government Mint represented by the unions are not entitled for 19% compensation on account of increase in working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week and the decision of the management of India Government Mint in not granting 19% compensation... is just and legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief."

The petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court challenging this award. Prior to the Tribunal reference, a related writ petition had also been dismissed by the High Court in 2004, where the Division Bench noted in Paragraph 25:

"We dispose of the application and the appeal holding that the writ petition cannot be entertained in this Court in writ jurisdiction in view of Section 28 of the 1985 Act... The writ petitioners shall, however, be free to approach the Forum under the appropriate Industrial/Labour Legislations..."

The Court examined the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and the observations of the Tribunal. It noted:

"The pay commissions recommendation of enhancing the working hours from 37 ½ hrs to 44 hrs is not unreasonable, unjust or prejudicial... considering that hours have been extended from 44 hrs to 48 hrs at 9 hrs per day. The pay, perks and allowances have also been adjusted/enhanced to compensate."

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. vs G.S. Uppal & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 375, which held:

"The courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors."

However, in the present case, the Court found no such elements of unreasonableness or prejudice. The standard working hours in India, as governed by the Factories Act, 1948, was also referred to:

"The standard working hours... is not more than 9 hours per day or 48 hours per week... If an employee exceeds the normal working hours, they are entitled to overtime pay."

Also Read: ‘Unjust, Unfair, and Irrational’: Karnataka High Court Orders KIADB to Refund Rs.2.71 Crore with 12% Interest to Power Firm — Says ‘No One Can Profit from Their Own Wrong

The Court also recorded that the demand for 19% compensation had been rejected earlier by the Ministry of Finance and upheld in related judicial proceedings.

The Calcutta High Court concluded that:

"The findings of the tribunal being in accordance with law requires no interference by this Court."

Accordingly, the writ petition WPA 4724 of 2022 was dismissed. The Court added:

"All connected application, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Senior Advocate; Mr. Puranjan Pal

For the Respondent/Union of India: Ms. Sabita Roy

For the Respondent No. 16: Ms. Sreetama Biswas

Case Title: Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. Vs. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 4724 of 2022

Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

[Read/Download order]