- (1.) THE First Petitioner before the Court, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, claims to represent Officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board in the nontechnical category, namely, (i) Deputy Establishment Officers, Accounts Officers and Assistant Personnel Officers; (ii) Labour Officers; and (iii) Divisional Accountants and Establishment Superintendents; and their equivalents. In substance, the plea in the petition is for wage parity with employees borne on the technical cadre such as (i) Deputy Executive Engineers; (ii) Assistant Engineers; (iii) Junior Engineers; and (iv) Sub Engineers. Amongst the reliefs that have been sought are: (i) A declaration that the settlements which were entered into by MSEB on 29th January 1990, 16th November 2000 and 10th January 2001 with several Unions do not bind the First Petitioner; (ii) A writ of Mandamus directing MSEB to grant to those officers in the nontechnical cadre specified in Exhibit 'm' to the petition, the same pay 3 scales and service conditions as are given to Assistant Engineers; (iii) A writ of Mandamus for the grant of the same pay scale and service conditions to nontechnical officers in Class I specified in Exh. N to the Petition as are granted to Deputy Executive Engineers. Having heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, we have arrived at the conclusion that the reliefs which have been sought, cannot be granted for the reasons which we now proceed to elucidate.
(2.) MAHARASHTRA State Electricity Board was established by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, with a view to carry on the activity of generating, transmitting and distributing electrical energy throughout the State. The Board established Power Stations and Sub Stations and has had Circle Offices and Divisional Offices throughout the State. The Board employs over one lakh persons. The employees of the Board are represented by the diverse Unions and Federations with whom the Board negotiates wages and service conditions. The conditions of service of those employees who are 'workmen' under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are governed by industrial settlements. Section 79 (3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, empowers the Board to frame regulations governing salaries, allowances and conditions of service of employees. The First Respondent has framed, from time to time, service regulations in exercise of its statutory powers.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners, in 1965, the First Respondent appointed Shri B. S. Kalelkar, a retired District Judge as an Arbitrator to decide upon the pay scales of its employees. It has been claimed that though the technical staff had sought better pay scales than the nontechnical staff, the Arbitrator maintained parity. In 1979, the technical staff is reported to have commenced an agitation demanding separate pay scales upon which an agreement was stated to have been arrived at on 19th March 1981 with the Subordinate Engineers' Association by which the First Respondent agreed to evolve a separate wage structure for Engineers. On 24th April 1982, the First Respondent entered into an agreement with the Subordinate Engineers' Association by which a separate wage structure came to be allowed to the technical staff. According to the Petitioners, the issue was taken up with the First Respondent in the light of certain assurances which were held out by successive Ministers in charge of the Energy Portfolio and at one of the meetings held on 25th March 1983, it was stated that the matter had been referred to the State Government for decision. The question of wage revision was taken up in 1987 and on 29th January 1990, a fresh settlement was arrived at in regard to the wages and other conditions of service. According to the Petitioners, the higher pay scales that have been allowed to technical staff are not based on rational criteria and the parity between the technical and nontechnical staff was disturbed without any valid basis. Clause 2 of the Settlement inter alia laid down that in case, any of the pay scales covered by the settlement were further revised during the period of the settlement, all the remaining pay scales shall also be revised proportionately.;