ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be a Trade Union operating in the respondent-Corporation. It has filed this writ petition questioning the validity and justification for the respondent-Corporation to issue the impugned notification dated 24-3-1995 proposing to create two cadres of service, namely, Driver Grade III and Conductor Grade III in the pay scale of Rs. 1700-2350 and Rs. 1700 to 2100 respectively.

(2.) The petitioner-trade Union claims that there is a binding settlement entered into between their union and the management of the Corporation during the course of conciliation proceedings under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 28-4-1994. Sri Ramchandra Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drew attention of the Court, particularly to clause 18.1 of the said settlement which reads as follows :-

(3.) The next contention advanced by Shri Rao is that the terms of settlement dated 28-4-94 binds not only the existing employees of the Corporation but also the employees who may be appointed subsequent to the signing of the settlement. Looking from that angle, Sri Rao submits the clause 18.1 of the settlement contemplates absorption of services of causal employees into the exiting Grade-I and Grade-II posts of conductors or drivers and that their right would be impaired and affected if the Corporation is permitted to create new Grade-III posts of Conductors and Drivers. This argument is required to be noticed only to be rejected. It cannot be gainsaid that any settlement arrived at between the Management and the workmen during the course of conciliation proceedings under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act would bind not only the then existing workmen but also the workmen who may be appointed subsequent to the date of settlement entered into between the parties. There cannot be any second opinion over this. In that view of the matter, if any person, subsequent to the date of settlement, is appointed to the post of Grade-I or Grade-II Conductor or Driver, he would be entitled to all the benefits, advantages, pecuniary and otherwise, which flow from the terms of the settlement. But, any person who seeks employment to the newly created post of Grade-III Conductor or Driver, shall not have any vested right to claim that he should also be entitled to all the benefits, advantages, pecuniary or otherwise, which are reserved for the employees working in the cadre Grade-I or II Conductors or Drivers. This is so simply because when the settlement was arrived at on 28-4-94, there was no cadre called Grade-III Drivers and Conductor. This problem can be looked from another angle also. The settlement is nothing but a contract between the Management and its employees and governed by principles of law of contract. There was no consensus ad idem between the parties when the settlement was arrived at on 28-4-94 in respect of the cadres now created under the impugned notification. This was not in contemplation of any of the parties on the date when the settlement was arrived at. Therefore, the second submission of the learned Counsel suffers from an initial inherent flaw.