SANAT KUAMR MUKHOPADHYAY & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1984-9-33
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 26,1984

Sanat Kuamr Mukhopadhyay And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ajit Kumar Sengupt, J. - (1.) The 8 writ petitioners are employed at the Calcutta Branch Office of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were appointed as Stenographers in March, 1980, the petitioner Nos. 3, 6 and 7 were appointed as Junior Assistants in February and April and petitioner No. 5 was appointed as Office Manager (Accounts) in March, 1980. All the appointments were made after 1st November, 1979. At the time when the petitioners were appointed in their respective posts negotiations were going on between the respondents and the Federation of the State Trading of India Employees Union representing the employees working under the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. regarding the fixation of scales of pay of different categories of employees including the categories in which the petitioners were employed under the provisions of Section 18(1) and Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter) referred to as the said Act) and ultimately a settlement was recorded and signed on 19th April, 1980. The said settlement inter alia, provides that pay of existing employees in position as on 1st November, 1979 would be fixed in revised scales as shown in annexures mentioned in the said settlement. In case of any difference in implementation or interpretation of any of the provisions of the said settlement between the management and the Federation, the same would be discussed in the Joint Consultative Committee.
(2.) It is alleged that the employees who were in office and in position on 1st November, 1979 were placed in the revised scales, though the actual settlement was arrived at on 19th April, 1980 and consequently the scales of pay of the petitioners who were actually in office and/or position before 19th April, 1980 were completely ignored. Under the said settlement, the scale of pay of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had been revised at Rs. 430/- to Rs. 950/-, the scale of pay of the petitioner Nos. 3, 6 and 7 had been revised at Rs. 385/-to Rs. 581/- and the scale of pay of the petitioner No. 5 had been revised at Rs. 675/- to Rs. 1,205/-. The result of the said settlement was that the petitioners who were drawing Rs. 355/- per month as basic pay on their date of appointment along with other Stanographers appointed on or before 1st November, 19 9, the revised basic scale per 'month was fixed at Rs. 430/-, whereas the Stenographers belonging to the same category who were appointed on 1st November, 1979 or prior to that would be getting Rs. 520/- per month on the same scale of pay. Similar anomalous position resulted in the fixation of pay in respect of other petitioners. Having come to know about the said anomalous position in the fixation of their basic pay under the revised scale, the petitioners made a representation on 28th August, 1980 to the authorities concerned through the Secretary of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (Calcutta Region) Employees' Union. Similar representation were made on 6th June, 1980, 19th December, 1980 and 5th February, 1982. Since no reply came from the State Branch of the Employees, Union, the petitioners on 1st March, 1982 made a representation to the Secretary General of the Federation of State Trading Corporation Employees Union at New Delhi. Thereafter several representations were made by and on behalf of the petitioners through the Employees' Union, both at Calcutta and also at Delhi and ultimately by a Circular dated 24th April, 1982, the Secretary of the State Branch informed the petitioners that at the All India Conference of the Federation to be held on and from 28th April, 1982, the anomalies in respect of fixation of basic pay of the employees like the petitioners would be taken up for discussion. On 24lh June, 1982, the representatives of Federation of State Trading Corporation of India Employees' Union met the Executive Director (Personal) and discussed the anomalies that cropped up as a result of the settlement dated 19th April, 1980 and as a result of the discussions, it was decided to set up a Joint Committee consisting of two representatives of the State Trading Corporation of India and two representatives of the employees of the State Trading Corporation and the said Committee was set up by office order dated 22nd July, 1982 of the Group Executive (Personnel) of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited.
(3.) The Committee known as Pay Anomalies Committee met several times and ultimately submitted an unanimous report to the authorities of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. In the said report, the Committee accepted the existence of anomalies in respect of pay scale inter alia, of the petitioners and inter alia, recommended as follows:- "The pay anomaly in this category of cases has arisen because of the fact that the revised scales came into effect w. e. f. 1.11.79 and since the above category of employees were not in position in the Corporation as on 1.11.79, they have not been given the benefits of revised fitment tables. The arguments in respect of those employees are that these persons were appointed in the old scales and appointment orders issued to them did not make a mention of their automatically being placed in the new scales without giving them any option. All the provisions of the Agreement are applicable to them fora period of 4 years w.e.f. 1.11.79 to 31.10.83 as in the case of other employees. Para 1.2 of the Agreement also lays down that provisions of the settlement shall be applicable to all workman of the Corporation and also to other employees upto and including office managers and office manager (accounts) and equivalent. It is observed by the Committee that the difference has cropped up due to non-application of fitment table with reference to the basic pay in the old scale in respect of the persons who joined between 1.11.79 to 19.4.80. In their case only the minimum pay of the new scales in the respective cadre was given. It is the opinion of the Committee that loss on account of application of new seales may be compensated.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.