Parity in pay scale and delay-laches in writ jurisdiction led to denial of relief for stale claims.

Employees appointed after a cut-off date could not claim parity in pay scale from an industrial award that protected only a distinct class of earlier employees, because the earlier benefit was a personal ad hoc protection and not a general pay revision; automatic extension to a different class was not required. The Court also reiterated that stale writ claims may be refused in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where the petitioners waited about 17 years and did not raise the grievance at the earliest opportunity. On these grounds, the appellate challenge succeeded and the respondents were denied relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether employees appointed after the cut-off date could claim parity in pay scale on the basis of an industrial award made in favour of an earlier class of employees; (ii) whether the writ petitions filed after a long delay could be entertained in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (i): whether employees appointed after the cut-off date could claim parity in pay scale on the basis of an industrial award made in favour of an earlier class of employees.

Analysis: The benefit originally granted was not a general revision of pay scale but a personal, ad hoc protection of pay given to 17 employees who had earlier worked as Shift In-charge. The industrial award was confined to workmen who were in service when that benefit was extended and thus formed a distinct class. Employees appointed after the cut-off date were not similarly situated, and Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not require automatic extension of the award to a different class of workmen.

Conclusion: The claim to parity in pay scale was not maintainable and was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petitions filed after a long delay could be entertained in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The respondents approached the Court after about 17 years and had not asserted their grievance at the earliest opportunity. Delay and laches are material considerations in the exercise of equitable writ jurisdiction, and a writ court should ordinarily refuse relief where a party has slept over its rights for an unduly long period.

Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been entertained and this issue was in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondents were denied relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ claim to parity cannot succeed where the claimant belongs to a different class from the beneficiaries of the earlier award, and stale claims may be declined in the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches.

---