NAGENDRA KUMAR BRIJRAJ SINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN SALTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, originally petitioners No.1-Nagendrakumar Brijraj Singh, petitioner No.2-Krishan Gopal Bharadwaj and the petitioner No.3-S.Laxmipati and the petitioner No.4-Veerpal Singh have filed this petition in the year 1986. However, when the matter reached this court, the Ld.counsel for the petitioners has submitted that only the petitioner No.3, i.e. S.Laxmipati is interested in prosecuting the present petition and, therefore, this court confines the case to the petitioner No.3-S.Laxmipati only.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the action of Hindustan Salts Ltd-the respondent-Company herein in appointing and absorbing the petitioner in the payscale of Rs.425-800 instead of 550-900/-. The petitioner prayed that the action of the respondents in appointing and absorbing the petitioner in the payscale of Rs.425-800.00 be declared illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further prayed to direct the respondent-Company to appoint the petitioner in the payscale of Rs.550-900.00 instead of Rs.425-800 with effect from the date from which the petitioner was appointed from 1.12.1985(petitioner No.3 only).

(3.) Relevant facts giving rise to this petition are as under: (i) S.Laxmipati-petitioner No.3 herein is a diplomaholder in Chemical Engineering with first class and worked as Technical Apprentice in Hindustan Polymers Ltd, Visakhapatnam(A) and Coramandal Agro-Products and Oils Ltd, Chirala(AP) for 6 months each. (ii) The petitioner has filed this petition contending interalia that the respondent-company issued an advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 23.7.83 inviting applications for two categories of Management Trainees. The qualifications were also prescribed in the advertisement. It was also pointed out that the selected candidates would undergo two years training and during the two years they would also be given stipends. It was also mentioned that on successful completion of the training, the candidates will be absorbed in the grades of Rs.700-1300 and 550-900 respectively. (iii) Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner applied for the same and he was thereafter called for interview and interviewed on 3.10.83 at Jaipur. The petitioner contended that thereafter the petitioner was issued an appointment letter appointing him as Management Trainee in the respondent-Company. The petitioner has pointed out that in pursuance to the same the respondent-company has issued the appointment letter. The appointment order contains various terms and conditions of appointment. It says that the petitioner would be paid stipend of Rs.700.00p.m. in the first year, Rs.800.00p.m.during the second year and period of training was for two years and the petitioner was required to pass various tests and if in case of trainees not passing the test and not satisfactorily carrying out different assignments, the management may extend the training period. Clause 3 clearly provided that on satsifactory completion of training the tranees will be absorbed in the scale of Rs.550-25-750-30-900 + other allowances. (iv) The petitioner contended that he has joined the respondent-company as Management Trainee on 1.12.1983 and started undergoing training. The petitioner was also required to enter into a service agreement and to give a surety bond to serve the respondent-organisation for a period of five years. The petitioner entered into such service agreement with the respondent-organisation. (v) The petitioner contended that the petitioner has completed training period and the company has given absorption order on 17.12.1995. Accordingly the petitioner was appointed as Inspector in the same scale with effect from 1.12.1985. (vi) It was further stated by the petitioner that when the petitioner was issued absorption order appointing him in the payscale of Rs.425-800.00 the petitioner was surprised and approached the higher authority and complained orally about the appointment in the scale of Rs.425-800 instead of Rs.550-900.00. It was alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was compelled to accept the same as he had no option but to accept the appointment order because if he had refused the appointment order in the scale of Rs.420-800.00 he would not have been issued appointment order at all and he would be without appointment in these hard days and economic crises. It was submitted by the petitioner that it would be very difficult for him to secure job elsewhere immediately particularly because of high rate of unemployment. (vii) It was contended that the petitioner was carrying on his duties as Inspector sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the best of his ability and there was no complaint regarding his work, performance or conduct. (viii) It was contended by the petitioner that action of respondent-company in appointing and absorbing the petitioners in the payscale of Rs.425-800.00 in place of Rs.550-900.00 is absolutely arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (ix) It was also contended by the petitioner that the respondent-company is Government of India enterprise and the share contribution of the Government of India is 100% and all its Directors and officers are from the Government of India. The Government of India also exercises complete, extensive and all pervasive control over the functioning of the respondent-company. The respondent-company satisfies all the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court of India in International Air Port Authority and Ajay Hansa case and it is an agency or instrumentality of the State and is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this petition is maintainable.