WP/20323/1995 of General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, on 26 December 2006

ORDER:-

The Management of the Singareni Collieries CompanyLimited filed this writ petition questioning the Award of theIndustrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, the 1[st] respondent herein, inI.D.No.16 of 1991 dated 05.10.1994 whereunder the petitioner wasdirected to fix the pay of six workmen viz., Sri T. Iylaiah, SriU.Balaiah, Sri N.Posham, Sri J.Iylaiah, Sri H.Lingaiah and SriK.Raji Reddy, belonging to the 2[nd] respondent Union on par withtheir junior Sri Arepalli Madaniah, from the date he was givenbasic pay of Rs.55.38 ps., with all other consequential reliefs.

The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the said sixworkmen were promoted to Category-IV of daily rated workerswith effect from 01.03.1986 and were confirmed in that categorywith effect from 01.06.1986. Whereas, Sri Arepalli Madaniah, whowas working as Khalasi, was promoted to Category-IV in the year1988. The grievance of the 2[nd] respondent Union raised beforethe 1[st] respondent was as Sri Arepalli Madaniah was admittedly ajunior to the said six workmen, his basic pay was fixed in Category-IV at higher than the basic pay fixed to the said sixworkmen. The 2[nd] respondent Union therefore relied upon theproceedings dated 28.12.1989 of the Joint Bipartite Committee forthe Coal India Limited which purported to rectify the anomalies ofseniors drawing lesser scale than their juniors.

The petitioner contested the dispute raised by the 2[nd]respondent Union before the 1[st] respondent by filing counter-affidavit and relevant material. The 1[st] respondent passed theAward impugned in this writ petition giving the relief as mentionedabove.

Counsel for the respondents is not present.

Heard Miss V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1[st]respondent committed a serious error in allowing the claim of thesix workmen relying upon the Implementation Instruction No.18dated 28.12.1989 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the CoalIndustry. She contended that the said circular has no applicationto the present case, since the said instruction envisagesrectification of anomalies in cases where the senior employeeswere getting prior to their promotion, the same pay or higher pay inNCWA-III pay scales qua their juniors. She invited my attention tothe counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner Management before the1[st] respondent and it is apt to extract the relevant portion asunder:

“The fixation of wages/salary to the sixclaimants are as per Annexure II-C of the NationalCoal Wage Agreement-IV which is a part of theSettlement. It is not their case that the settlementhas been violated. The following are the details of theworkmen in dispute with regard to their fixation. Atthe time of promotion to Category-IV the basic payfixations of the workmen in dispute were done inaccordance with the NCWA-III and with effect from01.01.1987 their basic were revised as per NCWA-IVscales. It is denied that the workmen in dispute weredrawing basic pay of Rs.34.50 as on 31.12.1986 inNCWA-III pay scales and that their basic pay wasfixed at Rs.54.06 at the commencement of NCWA-IV. The workmen in dispute were drawing a basic ofRs.32.10 ps. (in respect of T.Iylaiah, U.Balaiah,N.Posham and J.Iylaiah) and H.Lingaiah and RajiReddy were drawing Rs.31.30 ps as on 31.12.1986 inNCWA-III scales and after introduction of NCWA-IVscales from 01.01.1987 all the above persons weregiven the basic pay of Rs.50.10 ps., with effect from01.01.1987. On granting annual increments theirbasic pay was Rs.51.42 ps., as on 01.03.1987;Rs.52.57 p.s., as on 01.03.1988; and Rs.54.06 ps.,as on 01.03.1989 and so on. Sri A.Madanaiah, waspromoted to Category-IV as on 01.08.1988 and priorto his promotion he was drawing Rs.50.50 ps., inCategory-III as on 01.03.1987 and Rs.51.58 ps., ason 01.03.1988. On promotion to Category-IV witheffect from 01.08.1988 the basic payoff Sri ArepalliMadanaiah was appropriately fixed at Rs.54.06 ps.,and after earning annual increment his basic pay wasRs.55.38 ps., as on 01.03.1989.”

The learned counsel therefore contends that theImplementation Instruction No.18 per Se has no application for the reason that the said Arepalli Madanaiah was drawing higher pay inCategory-III than his seniors.

I see force in the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner. Para 2 of the Implementation Instruction No.18 dated28.12.1989 is extracted hereunder:

“It has been pointed out that in some cases,employees who are senior in the same pay scalesand covered by the same seniority list in a cadrehave secured fixation at a lower stage than theirjuniors in the same cadre who were promoted after01.01.1987 (after implementation of NCWA-IV) eventhough the said senior employees were getting priorto their promotion the same pay or higher pay inNCWA-III pay scales as their juniors in question. Ithas been decided that such individual cases will bechecked up and where such an anomaly hasoccurred, the pay of senior employees in theindividual cases will be stepped up to the level of thepay of junior employees concerned from the date theanomaly has arisen i.e., after 01.01.1987 and fromthe date the junior was promoted giving rise to theanomaly in question. It has to be ensured that for theremoval of the anomalies, the basic conditionsstipulated above would have to be fulfilled beforeinitiating any action.”

From the afore-extracted instruction, it is clear that in orderto get the pay anomaly rectified, the condition precedent to besatisfied is that the senior employees, prior to their promotion,should have been getting the same pay or higher pay qua theirjuniors in question. Neither before the 1[st] respondent nor in this

Court, the 2[nd] respondent Union has denied the averment of thepetitioner that Arepalli Madanaiah was getting higher pay inCategory-III than the six workmen in the same category. In theface of this undisputed fact the said six workmen have notsatisfied the essential condition contained in the implementationinstruction as they were drawing only a pay of Rs.31.10 ps., orRs.31.30 ps., as the case may be in NCWA III category while theirjunior was drawing the pay of Rs.51.58 ps., in the said categoryprior to his promotion. The 1[st] respondent, in my considered view,has committed a patent error by overlooking this essential andrelevant fact and in granting relief to the said six workmenapplying the Implementation Instruction No.18 dated 28.12.1989which, in the admitted factual matrix has no application to thiscase. Thus, the Award under challenge suffers from errorapparent warranting interference by this Court exercising itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

In the premises as aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed, theAward of the 1[st] respondent is set aside. No order as to costs.

____________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, JDate: 26.12.2006ES