HINDUSTAN ZINC Vs. JAGMAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned order dated 4. 6. 99 (Annex. 5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the pay of respondent No. 1 was ordered to be fixed at par with Shri Natwar Lal and further Rs. 2400/- were ordered to be paid to the respondent No. 1 for the period from 1. 1. 1995 to 31. 12. 96 be quashed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) That the petitioner is a Unit of the company being Hindustan Zinc Limited having its head office at Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur. IT is a Government of India undertaking in the sense that though it is registered under the Companies Act as a body corporate but its major share holding is of Government of India, and is entitled to file writ petition in the name of its different unit as well. ii) That as is a common consequence in the matters of promotion and fitments that at times, for wholly fortuitous circumstances, a junior employee may happen to receive a pay packet a little higher than the pay packet of his senior for few months every years. This situation is commonly known as pay anomaly and in various Pay Scale Rules, provision is made for redressal of such anomalies. iii) That the employees working in different units of the petitioner have the recognised trade Unions and from time to time, such Unions have been raising/submitting charters of demand and settlements are arrived at from time to time, to be effective from a particular date and for a specified period of time. Such settlements are Long Term Settlement and by virtue of provisions of Sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) is binding on the parties to the agreement. iv) IT may be stated here that respondent No. 1 is an employee of the petitioner since before the entering into of Long Term Settlement VI and since he was a member of the Union which was a party to the settlement, the respondent No. 1, by force of Section 18 of the Act of 1947 was also very much bound by the settlement. v) That the petitioner further submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition relates to clause 6. 1. 2 of Long Term Settlement VI which has been reproduced by the respondent No. 2 in the impugned award. However, for convenience, the said clause is reproduced hereunder: " IT is further agreed that if any anomaly occurs after 1. 7. 92 as a result of promotion (except due to regularisation of stagnation promotion cases in regular category) i. e. if a junior gets higher salary than his senior in the same LOP, and does not get rectified after fitment as on 1. 7. 95, the basic pay of the senior will be stepped up in a manner that may be required to maintain his seniority. However, it is agreed that all the cases of previous year will be settled together in January next year. " vi) That one Natwar Lal employee No. 32076 was working on the post of HEMM Operator - II (the post falling in category VII in LOP-8 ). Natwar Lal was initially appointed on 2. 11. 1977 in the lower category in LOP - 8 on the post of Driver. Likewise the respondent No. 1 also came to be appointed in the same category on the post of Driver on 28. 3. 77 i. e. earlier to Natwar Lal. Thus, on the basis of initial appointment, the respondent No. is senior to Shri Natwar Lal. vii) The respondent No. 1 was promoted on the post of HEMM Operator-II in category-VII with effect from 1. 1. 1994 and his pay fixation was effected accordingly. viii) That on the other hand, for want of vacancy, Shri Natwar Lal could not be given promotion till 31. 12. 94 despite having completed 10 years' service in category - VI and thereafter with effect from 1. 1. 1995, he was accorded the stagnation promotion. On stagnation promotion, his designation continued to be one of Category - VI but he was fixed in the pay scale of category-VII. ix) That after Natwar Lal was given stagnation promotion, a vacancy arose on the post of HEMM Operator - II in category - VII and, therefore, being senior most, he was given promotion. Hence, as per Long Term Settlement-IV, his designation was changed. He also became entitled to be given one additional increment. x) That in this background, Natwar lal happened to receive the pay packet a step higher than respondent No. 1. xi) Thereafter the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Sec. 33 (c) (2) of the Act of 1947 before the competent Authority, under the Payment of Wages act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1936) claiming that since his junior person Shri Natwar lal was getting more pay than him, therefore, this anomaly should be removed. xii) That petitioner filed reply to the said application filed by respondent No. 1. The learned competent authority (respondent No. 2) after hearing both the parties through impugned award dtd. 4. 6. 99 (Annex. 5) allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 33 (c) (2) of the Act of 1947 holding that there is anomaly in the pay which is required to be redressed and directed the petitioner to pay basic salary equal to the one being paid to Sh. Natwar lal. Hence this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) THE High Court's power of revision under Article 227 of the constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power.