BOARD OF DIRECTORS Vs. HRUSIKESH SENAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein filed writ petitions OJC No. 9368 of 1995 and OJC No. 9218 of 1996 challenging the introduction of E-O grade in the executive cadre as promotional avenue for the channel of supervisors inter alia in S-3 cadre on the ground that it deprived the employees of their legitimate promotional avenue E-1 in executive cadre. The respondents also prayed for quashing the circular No. 64 dated 29-6-1995 contending that it was issued without the decision of the Board of Directors as to the introduction of new induction point E-O grade in the executive cadre.

(2.) The writ petitions were resisted by the appellants stating that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Executives, 1984 (for short 'the 1984 Rules') were applicable only to executives and not for the employees in the non-executive cadres; scheme for promotion of the non-executives to executive cadre was separate and independent; the impugned circular No. 64 noted that over the years, executive cadre was stablished with consequent reduction in the requirement of E-1 level officers. Hence, it had become necessary to implement the said circular to provide promotional avenues to the employees working at supervisory level in the S-3 grade for selection against the executive posts at E-O level subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed. A settlement under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer between the appellant company and nine different non-executive employees' unions representing substantial majority of them. In the said binding settlement it is specifically stipulated that the employees in the revised grades M-6/T-6/P6/S-3 (corresponding to S-3 level) would continue to be eligible for internal selection for posts at E-O level according to the prescribed conditions.

(3.) The High Court disposed of the writ petition OJC No. 9368 of 1995 by a short order without dealing with various contentions raised by the appellants directing "that the scheme contained in Annexure-5 can only remain in force if any part or portion thereof which is at variance with the conditions contained in Annexure- 1 cannot have any legal effect prejudicing the rights of the petitioner or similarly situated persons in the matter of promotion and other incidental aspects." OJC No. 9218 of 1996 was disposed of following the order made in OJC No. 9368 of 1995. Hence these two appeals by the appellant company.