Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 356 (GUJ)

Jamnagar Municipal Corporation v. K. P. Gosai

2016-02-15

K.M.THAKER

body2016
JUDGMENT: K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate and Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. In present petition the petitioner Corporation has brought under challenge the award dated 29.3.2005 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 237 of 1991 whereby the petitioner Corporation has directed the petitioner to give effect to the revised pay scale in respect of 3 workmen, for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1994 and to pay amount of differential salary which would be payable on account of such adjustment within period of 3 months from the date of award. 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner corporation and the respondent workmen that the three employees of the petitioner corporation raised dispute that upon implementation of 4th Pay Commission, the corporation has committed mistake in adjusting their existing pay scale against appropriate revised pay scale recommended by 4th Pay Commission. 3.1 With such grievance, the claimant employees raised industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication by appropriate government vide order of reference dated 13.11.1991. The appropriate government referred the dispute - claim that whether the three workmen should be granted pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 instead of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and whether they should be paid arrears of salary. 3.2 The learned Tribunal adjudicated the said reference and after considering the material available on record, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that upon implementation of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, the claimants were entitled for adjustment of their pay scale in grade of Rs. 1150-1500 as against the grade of Rs. 950-1500 determined - adjusted by the petitioner corporation. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to such modification - revision with effect from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1994. The learned Tribunal, therefore, directed the corporation to pay the arrears within three months. 3.2 According to the petitioner corporation, the concerned workmen, who are entitled for pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 at the time when the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission was implemented, became eligible for the pay scale of Rs. The learned Tribunal, therefore, directed the corporation to pay the arrears within three months. 3.2 According to the petitioner corporation, the concerned workmen, who are entitled for pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 at the time when the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission was implemented, became eligible for the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 after 31.3.1994 and that, therefore, the said benefits were granted to them with effect from 1.4.1994, however, from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1994, the persons are not entitled for pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500. 4. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation submitted that the corporation had adopted the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission. He also submitted that the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission was published on 1.3.1987. Thereafter the State Government implemented the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission. Consequently, the corporation also adopted the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission. The corporation had to follow the procedure for implementation of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission in accordance with the provisions under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. He submitted that accordingly, after following the procedure, the corporation implemented the recommendation on grade to grade basis and adjusted the grade of Rs. 260-400 and against grade of Rs. 950-1500 under the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission. According to Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation, there is no illegality in the said decision of the petitioner corporation. He submitted that subsequently the corporation took decision to revise the pay scale on the post of Tracer to Rs. 1150-1500 and accordingly, resolution dated 14.5.1994 was passed whereby the pay scale for the post of Tracer was revised from Rs. 950-1500 to Rs. 1150-1500 with effect from 1.4.1994. He submitted that in view of the said resolution, appropriate benefits have been granted to the concerned workmen and they have been paid salary in pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 with effect from 1.4.1994 and that, therefore, the demand by the concerned workmen for the said benefit with effect from 1.4.1989 is not correct or justified. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workmen submitted that the petitioner corporation implemented recommendation of 4th Pay Commission on grade to grade basis. He further submitted that in the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Tracer which was issued in 1992, the corporation has mentioned pay scale of Rs. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workmen submitted that the petitioner corporation implemented recommendation of 4th Pay Commission on grade to grade basis. He further submitted that in the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Tracer which was issued in 1992, the corporation has mentioned pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 for the post of Tracer and the said fact also does not support the petitioner's contention that the respondent employees are entitled for their revision only with effect from 1.4.1994 and not from 1.4.1989. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and to decide the petitioner's challenge against the impugned award. It is necessary to take into account certain dates and events and the effect of the resolutions/decisions by the petitioner corporation and some undisputed facts. 7. It is not in dispute that at the relevant and material point of time, the concerned three persons were employed on the post of and they were working as 'Tracer'. 7.1 It is also not in dispute that before the State Government took the decision to implement the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, a dispute/demand for revision in wages for the employees of the petitioner corporation was pending before the learned Tribunal by way of Demand Reference No. 227 of 1987. 7.2 The learned Tribunal passed Part-I award in the said reference on 18.7.1989. The said Part-I award came to be passed in the light of the settlement entered into between the corporation and the union. 7.3 It is not in dispute that under the said settlement, the parties had agreed to fix the pay scale for the post of Tracer at Rs. 950-1500. 7.4 It is also not in dispute that the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission was published on 1.3.1987 and thereafter the petitioner corporation had adopted the same and commenced the procedure for implementing the said recommendation in accordance with the provisions under the Act. 8. It is also not in dispute that according to the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, the pay scale for the post of Tracer as well as in respect of the grade of Rs. 260-400, recommended pay scale was in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500. 9. In view of the fact that though the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission prescribed grade of Rs. 1150-1500 for the post of Tracer and in respect of grade of Rs. 260-400, recommended pay scale was in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500. 9. In view of the fact that though the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission prescribed grade of Rs. 1150-1500 for the post of Tracer and in respect of grade of Rs. 260-400, the petitioner corporation adjusted present respondents' pay scale in the grade of Rs. 950-1500 and not in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500. 10. Therefore, the concerned respondents felt aggrieved and raised industrial dispute. 11. The learned Tribunal examined the dispute and relevant material and reached to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled for the grade of Rs. 1150-1500 with effect from 1.4.1989. 12. At this stage it is necessary to mention that the corporation itself has, vide its decision in May 1994, granted grade of Rs. 1150-1500 for the post of Tracer. 13. It is also not in dispute that on or around 30.3.1992 the petitioner corporation had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Tracer and in the said advertisement, the petitioner corporation itself had mentioned that the pay scale applicable for the post of Tracer is Rs. 1150-1500. Thus, even in March 1992 the corporation was aware that applicable pay scale was Rs. 1150-1500. 14. On examination of the record, it is noticed that the corporation itself had passed an office order dated 23.2.1989 whereby it was decided that in the booklet published by the Government the pay scale for the post of Tracer is in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500 and therefore, corporation approved the pay scale for the post of the Tracer in grade of Rs. 1150-1500. Thus, vide office order dated 23.2.1989, the petitioner corporation itself approved the grade of Rs. 1150-1500 for the post of Tracer. 15. By the said office order dated 23.2.1989, the petitioner corporation took the decision of correcting the anomaly with regard to other posts as well, i.e. Sub Inspector and Stenographer. 15.1 It appears that subsequently the corporation passed another order dated 14.5.1994 and in the said office order dated 14.5.1994, the corporation mentioned that for the post of Tracer, the pay scale will be fixed in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500 instead of grade of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1.4.1994. 16. 15.1 It appears that subsequently the corporation passed another order dated 14.5.1994 and in the said office order dated 14.5.1994, the corporation mentioned that for the post of Tracer, the pay scale will be fixed in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500 instead of grade of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1.4.1994. 16. At this stage, it is necessary and appropriate to mention that the corporation implemented the said order dated 14.5.1994 and revised the salary of concerned three claimants - respondents and adjusted their salary/pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1.4.1994 in view of the office order dated 14.5.1994. 17. However, what is pertinent is the fact that while passing the office order dated 14.5.1994, the corporation took into consideration the government resolution dated 10.6.1987 its own resolution, i.e. general body's resolution dated 18.3.1998 and the departmental notings dated 8.4.1994 as well as the Labour Officer's report dated 27.8.1994, however, unfortunately, while passing the office order dated 14.5.1994, the corporation either ignored or lost sight of its own office order dated 23.2.1989, whereby the decision to correct the anomaly and revise the pay scale of Tracer from Rs. 950-1500 to the grade of Rs. 1150-1500 was approved. 18. The petitioner corporation seems to have acted upon the office order dated 14.5.1994, however, the corporation failed to notice that while passing the office order dated 14.5.1994 it had lost sight of and not taken into account its own office order dated 23.2.1989. 19. The said office order dated 23.2.1989 as well as advertisement issued by the corporation on or around 30.3.1992 inviting applications for the post of Tracer conjointly establish that the corporation itself had, after February 1989 and in March 1992 considered and noticed the fact that the salary for the post of Tracer should be in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 and even according to the corporation, the pay scale applicable to the post of Tracer should be in the grade of Rs. 1150-1500. 20. Besides this, when the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission is noticed, it comes out that the pay grade and scale recommended for the post of Tracer and/or in respect of the erstwhile scale of Rs. 260-400 is Rs. 1150-1500. 21. 1150-1500. 20. Besides this, when the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission is noticed, it comes out that the pay grade and scale recommended for the post of Tracer and/or in respect of the erstwhile scale of Rs. 260-400 is Rs. 1150-1500. 21. When all these aspects are taken into account conjointly and collectively, it emerges that the corporation is bound to act in accordance with its own office order dated 23.2.1989 and in view of the said office order, the concerned respondents employed on the post of and working as Tracer would be entitled to salary in grade of Rs. 1150-1500 with effect from 1.4.1989 and the learned Tribunal has not committed any error. The order does not warrant any interference. The petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.