Allowed

K.R. Sahu v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2012WP/4664/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court reviewed an appeal against an industrial dispute order regarding seniority and promotion. It set aside the Industrial Court's decision for non-implementation of a prior High Court order regarding the petitioner's seniority date. The court remanded the matter to the management to consider the petitioner's case for promotion and granted partial monetary relief pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Industrial Court order set aside; management directed to consider petitioner's case for seniority and promotion as per High Court order; petitioner granted 50% of wage difference pending promotion dec

K.R. Sahu Vs Steel Authority of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR, M.p. .^^L1 MRIT PETITION Id.' OF 1997 / PETITIOM_y!DER ^aTICLE_227 OF CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA ^ • / PETITIONER K.^. Sahu S/Q Kheduram Sahu aged 'about 61 years Qld Ad.d.cess: Quarter No.lo-A Street No.20 Sector-7 Bhilai Nagar District Durg, new resident of 569/13 Sinuhiya Nagar WarEi Na.13, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, M.P.

¶2

VE R S U S

¶3

	SESPONDENTS	: •^ i.	The Steel Authority of India L'<-;!. Bhiiai Steel Plsnt, Bhilai, Through, Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, (;AP) .
		2. $..	! K.J.Remaiyah, Junior Msnager, Distribution Net Works Department, Bhilai Steel plant, Bhilai, District Durg, (MP).
		5 3.	R.K.Chaudhary, Chargeman, Distribution Netv/orks Degartment, Bhilai Stell Plant. Bhilsi, District Durs, ( ).
		4. ^.	M.K.Bhattacharya, Chargeman, Distribution Networks Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District, Dux-c, (MP) .
		5.	S.N.Dutta, Chargeroan, Distribution NetVf'qrks Department, Bhilai Steel plant, Bhilai,District Duro(2/P) .
		6.	Q.N.Manpure, S-fceel Bosrd AT-'tendant, Distribi.ition Netw?rk De@artment Bhila£~Steel'P'Ian-t7'BKi£ai,"""""'' District Durg, (MP).
,'•—."<br>'S. "fh*'^ rn.y' n;r ~\1 r^w]\	!M. 1,	,/"	s 7. 8.

¶4

; ^ ^,'%^I^Mf<is.t^t§N'°^^ l ia^e^^^:: '^ .:: BMU; •.:-!^ •"WiBSBHIItt sp~^E|^|^%T^^||?^^a|8tj|||po:N3a^, .^^•: ^^,,^'^{-'^} a'-•s^ KSifKg|FBIB;K : ;¥1y•i'ftM'ia%i'T||^i^:^B:ls^' »5i®Z;^{^*i—,} .':::i£^S'Sai-:l ^y^^f: :w^^^^^^- :'^^^^;

¶5

¶6

mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR

¶7

S.B. : HON'BLESHRIMEANINDRAMOHANSHRIVASTAVA.J.

W.P. No.4fi64/1997

PETmONBR

K.R. Sahu

Versus

RBSPONDBNTS The Steel Aufhority of fadia Ltd. and Ors.

¶13

Petltlon uader Articte 227 of the Coiistitutton of Indla

¶14

Appearance:

¶15

Shri H.B. Agrawal, 8r. Advocate atong wifh Shri Sangharsh

¶16

Pandey, counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for respoadent No.l.

¶18

None for other respondents.

¶19

ORAL- caasEaa.

¶20

(Passed on 11.9.2012)

¶21

Heard.

¶22

2, This petltion under Arttcle 227 of the Constitiition af India has been preferred agamst the order dated 3.9.1997 passed by fhe Industrial Cozut, whereby fhe appeal filed by respondent No.l against the order of the Labour Court has been allcwed, settinj aside the order of fhe Laboi-ir Coiirt.

¶23

Brief facts of the case^necessary for adjudicatlon of controversy Involved tn the petition are fhat fhe petitiorrer was appojnted as Electrician m fhe constructiaa work of Bbilai Steel Plant (BSP)

¶24

w.e.f 30th November 1957. Later on, by aa order passed by the General Manager, BSP, petitloner was absorbed as Electrician in the regiilar establlshment w.e.f. 6.2. 1959. A writ petition was flled by the petitloner in fhe High Coiirt of Madhya. Pradesh registered

¶25

¶26

"'%., .s^.^s!s^ /'C....2 i\ <*SfeAI% ''•• 3 t ^. w...,'. / 1 •'"-s^sia...'''"

¶27

-2-

¶28

as M.P. No.841/72, clalming that petitioner is entifled to draw his salaiy m pay-scale ofRs.80-5-120/- from 6.2.1959 and entitled to be placed over and aboveV.N. Joshi (respondent No.4 therein). Writ petition filed by ttie petitloner was eventuaUy allowed ^7ide order dated 13.2.1959. It was directed fhat the petitioner shall draw his salaiy in the scale of Rs.80-5-120/- from 6.2.1959 and shafl further be entitled to reckon his seiiiority among the Electricians as if he was appointed to that post on 6.2.1959.

¶29

After tfae order of fhe High Court, various consequential orders according seniority and appropriate pay-scate were passed from time to time by the respondents filed as Ex.P-2, P-3 & P-4.

¶30

It however appears fhat ttie priarate respondeaits herein,who

¶31

are workiag in various discipUne and were kept fai fbe com-mon seniority list along wlfh the petitioner, were graosted beneflt of proxnotion without treatlng petitioner as senlor to ttiem. This led to anofher round of Utigatton at fhe instance of the petitianer. Petitioner preferred a petition before fhe Labour Caurt. Initially Labour Coiut passed an order on 1.11.1983 against which an appeal was preferred before (he Industrial Court and (he Industrial Court vide order dated 7.11.1985 (AiHiexure P-14) ^t aside the order and remanded fhe ease to (he Labour Ctourt for considering afresh. Thereafter, anofher order was passed by the Labour Court on 6.3.1991, which was again taken in appeal and that order was also set aside and the matter was again remanded to the Labour Court vide order dated 5.7.1993 (Annexure P-17). A writ petition was preferred being M.P. No. 3840/93, whlch was finaUy decided vide order dated 24.7.1996 (Annexure P-21), by which fhe case was again remanded for consideration of Ifae Labour Coi-irt.

¶32

Vide order dated 30.10.1996, (he Labour Court aUowed fhe petition wifh a dlreetion to grant seniority to the petitioner over and above respondents No. 2 to 29 fherein and on that basis

€'^ '"'ssih

-3-

":';.

grant hun proiaotion aad make payment of arrears of pay beinj the difference of wages on account of promotlon to higher post. Aggrieved by fhe saltt order, respoadent No. 1 preferred an appeal before fhe Industrial Court and by impugned arder, Industrial Coi.irt has set aside fhe order passed by fhe Labour Court, gving rise to ttus petition.

¶38

AssaUing the correctness and vafidity of the order i^issed by the Industrial Oourt, leamed senior counsel for fhe petitioner urged that the petitioner was ordared to be granted semorily in compUance of fhe High Court's order dated 13.2.1979 in M.P. No.841/72. The High Court m its order clearly recarded to reckoai petitioner's semorily amoi^st (he Electrlcians as if appointed to that post on 6.2.1959. As respondents 2 to 29 fherdn wa-e appointed subsequent to 6.2.1959, petitioner WSBS entiUed to be given seniorily over and above those employees and on fhat basis, he was entlUed to grant promotion, arrears of pay ete. which has rightty been granted to him by fhe Labour Court. Further submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner 1s fhat the Industrial Court made an attempt to cu-cumvent and overreach the order of fhe High court passed on 13.2.1979 on the groimd that respondents 2 to 29 fherein were not parties befwe flie High Court nor the petitioner had clauned senlority over and abeve them, (herefore, no benefit of semority and consequeaatial benefits of promotion could be granted to the petltionar. In his submlssion, even if fhose persons were not impleaded as respondents in fhe writ petition, fhe Hi^i Coiirt of Madhya Pradesh clearly held fhat fhe petitioner is entitled^to reckon^his senlority amongst EtectriGlan as if he was appototed on 6.2.1959 and fhls order having attatnted finality without any^challenge eifher by respondent No. 1 or by tfaose employees (respondents No.

¶39

2 to 29 in petition before the Labour Court),^{itcoiridirotbe} subsequentty allowed to be raised in drfiance of the order of (he High Court. He fiirther submtts (hat respondents have ^anted

¶40

^'^{^}

¶41

-4-

¶42

s^'i''..'.?' s~..'. ..f -.**.'^•

¶43

beneflt of seruority and consequent promotion orily by partly complying wifh the order of tfae High Court whereby petitloner was granted seiiiority over and above V.N. Joshl and, tfaerefore, what has beeai held by the Labour Court did not warrant any tnterference by the Industrial Court.

¶44

Per contra, submission of leanied counsel for Bespondent No. 1 is that the petitioner's clatm of semority and consequential beneflts of promotion above respondents No. 2 to 20 (in fhe Labour Court) is founded on complete misconstructlon of the readmg of the order of the High Court passed on 13.2.1979 and by c<Mnpletely ignoring tiie context and the background in whrch the said onder was passed. He subimts fhat before the High Cburt, it was never an issue as to whefher fhe petitioiier was entlUed to seruoiity over and above those employees (respondents No.2 to 29 before fhe Labour Court) wh®were not even impleaded. He fiufher subraits that many of those employees were those who were appoiated on a different pay-scale thaa the petitioner and therefore, fhe petitioner^{coiildnotclaunseniorityoverandabovefhem.Tlris} was never an issue for consideration before the High coiirt m that writ petitfon. Therefore, if the Higti Court order is understood in its proper context, fhe oiily benefit which could accrue to the petitioner^was grant^{ofsenionlyw.e.f.6.2.1959amongsttiiose} Electricians granttog pay-scale of 80-5-120/-. V.N. Jodii, who was respondent in fhat writ petition and ^auist whom petitioner has elaimed seniority, was later on, placed below fhe petltiuner and fhereby benefit of seniority as per the order of (he H^h Q>urt was fully extended. He further submits that petitioner has been granted promotion^{andconsequentbenefltswhichwere} granted to V.N. Joshi,fi~om due dates. Therefore, the Industrial Court has not committed any iUegaUly or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by thls Coiirt in exereise of supa-visory jurisdiction^{under Article 227offhe Constitution of India.}

-5-

^•^-i.^':.-

A perusal of order dated 13.2.1979 passed by the High Gourt of Madhya Pradesh (Annexure P-1) reveals fhat a writ petttion was flled by the petitioner claimmg fhat he is entitled to salary ia the pay-scale of 80-5-120/- firom 6.2.159 and entitled to be placed over and above V.N. Joshi (respondent No.4 thereinj ta the seniority list of Electricians . In para-4 of its order, it was held by the Court that (he petitioner is entitled to fhe scale of Rs.80-5120/- from 6.2.1959 and further fhat fhe petitioiwsr shall reck<Hi

¶49

tus seniorily in £he grade of Electricians from 6.2.1959 i.e. the date fi-om which he has been absorbed m fhat gra.de. The writ petition was fherefore allowed with a direction that (he petittoiier is entitled to draw salary in the scale of Rs. 80-5-120/- ft'om 6.2.1959. A furfher directton was ^ven (hat seniortty of the petitioner^{as Electrician shaU be fixed as indicated in fhe order.In}

¶50

concluding para-5 of the order, categoric directi<Mi of ftie High Court was that petitioner shall draw lus salaiy in the scale af 805-120/- from: 6.2.1959 and he ^iall fiirther be entitled to reckon his'senlorily among fhe Electricians as if appouited to fliat post on 6.2.1959. ThCTefore, the order of fhe Hlgh Court clearfy holds that petttioner is" entltled to reckon hls semority asiongst the Electericians w.e.f. 6.2.1959. True it is fhat respondents 2 to 29 iai the petition toefore the Labour Court were not unpleaded as respondents m fhe writ ^tition before the High Court. However, that might be a basis to chaUenge the order of the High Coru-t that no seniorily could be granted to fhe pelttioner in ftie grade o£ Electricians fl-om 6.2.1959 wifhout impleadiag those persons as respondents. However, respondent could not point out fhat fhe order of fhe High Cotirt was challenged before the Hlgh C-oiirt or any review was sought. Therefore, fhe order dated 13.2.1979, having attained flnallty, entitled tfae petldoner to grant of '

¶51

seniorityamoi^stElectriciansw.e.f, 6.2.1959.

¶52

¶53

The approach oftfae Industrial Court fhat fhe petitioner eould not be granted senlority over and above respondents No. 2 to 29

¶54

&^ f

¶55

^"•!"CS">-. ^st5'^t^!%>. ^l ^. '^•s^j^'" "'•V: 1 -S 1 ^'M^"y¥./y•'

¶56

-6 -

¶57

before the Labour Court because (hey wece not impleaded as party in the writ petition, is fallaclous. Iffhat was fhe objectlon of the Management or fhose employeeswho were afiTected, it was for them to question fhe correctoess and valldity of ©rderdated 13.2.1979. However, that havtag not been dosne, (he beneflt of order dated 13.2.1979 coidd not be wifhhdd from the petitioner in fhe light ofveiy categoric duectlon fhat the petitioner would be entitled to reckon his seniority among the Electridans as if appolnted to fhat post on 6.2.1959, clearty antltling the petitloner to place over and above of those in fhe grade of ElectriciMis who were appointed after 6.2.1959. That would eveatuaUy include all fhose employees m the grade of Electricians whefher or not fhey were impleaded as respondents in fhe M.P. No.841/72.

¶58

¶59

Leamed counsel for respondent No.l sought to suppart the conclusion of fhe Industrtel court by referring to the detaited affidavlt filed in compliance of order of fhis Court, by submlttfag fhat ffae petitioners could not claim seiuority agatost respondents No. 2 to 29 before fhe Labour Court because fhe pay-scale of the petitioner and the pay-scate of (hose ofiBcers is dttferent and there cannot be emy companson between fhe petiitioner and fhose ofBeers and, fherefore, the question of grant of seniority over and above those officers does not arise at aIL The Industrial Court has not considered fhis aspect at all but it has reversed the order of fhe Labour Cotirt by holding that petitioner was imt entifled to seniorily as respondents No. 2 to 29 befare the High Court were ' not party in fhe writ petition which was eventualty decided vide order dated 13.2.1979. I find that neifher fhe Labour Court nor the Industrial Court has anywhere considered fhls aspect. Leamed senior counsel appearing for fhe petitioner^centended that irrespective of different pay-scales, petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 29 before fhe Labour Court, afl constttate one particular grade ofElectridans and a common seniority Ust is prepared. In fhe absence of fhls issue having been raised by any

--.J

-7^^

{, Is&S y

of fhe pardes and decided before elfher of fhe Coiirts, I am not iaclmed to go into that aspect of fhe matter.

¶64

Even though I find fhat the order of the Industraal Court is not sustatoable in fhe eye of law for the reasons stated above, at fhe same time fhis Qiurt cannot approve of direction wlacti h&s been issued bv fhe Labour Goiirt. Even tf it were to be held that petitioner was entiUed to grant of seniorily over and above fhose who were appointed after 6.2.1959 and ofher consequential benefits, no order to sfa-al^itway grant promotion aad arrears of pay could be granted. At the most Labour Coiat could have directed the Mane^ement to conslder the case of fhe petttmner for promotion as a'consequeace of grant of seiiiority over and above ftiose Electricians who were appointed after 6.2.1959 and in the event of beii^ found fit to various grades, promotion to fhose post. Moreover, looktag to fhe fact that fhe matter Ksetf had remained m Utigation for a petty long time wifhout there being any fault ofthe Management or the petftioner, ablsmket direction for payment of arrears based on such directlon for promotion is also not sustamable in fhe eye oflaw.

¶65

In the result, fhe order passed ty the Industrial Coiut is set aside. The Management is now directed to consiider ttie petitioner's case for grant of seniority strictty as per fhe order dated 13.2.1979 of the High Court in M.P. No. 841/72. If a common grade and seiiiority, irrespective of dtfferent pay-scale is maintained by respondents, the petittoner's seniorily shall be reckoned above aH fhose Electridans who were a^ointed after 6.2.1959. On that baas, petitioner claim for promotion on higher post shatl also be considered and tfpetitioner isfound fit, he shall also be entifled to promotlon to the next higher post/grade w.e.f. the date ofacers junior to him were promoted.

¶66

Taldng into consideration the totality 6f the (areumstanees and considerit^ (hat tfae pefltioner has beai Iftigating for several

¶67

';'\ "•.••f^JJ1-'

¶68

-8^'^

¶69

years before fhis Oourt and before (he Labour Court & Indastrial

¶70

' Court, fhe iaterest ofjustice would be served if petitionesr is held entitted for difiercnce of wages.tf any.to the extent of 50 %. to fhe event of grant of promotion in fhe higha- post and flxatton pf pay m hl^her pay-scales, other retrial benefits are also affected. It is made clear that whUe considerlng fhe case of fhe petttloner for promotton as a consequence of grajnt of senioraty to Um abowe

¶71

junlor employees, relevant rules and regulatlons, eligibBUy

¶72

' condition shall not be ig?iored because the Industorial Court taas observed thatfor g'ant ofpromotion to certaia grades tn executive cadre, pefltioner is required to be possessed cS csrWcsSs of passing tra.de test and it has also been obser?ed ttoat petftioner was imposed penalty.

¶73

Petition is accardingly aBowed to fhe extait indleated above.

¶74

-•^

¶75

Sd/Manindra Mohan Shrivastava —<—. -^ judge

¶76

PFaueea

K.R. Sahu v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R. Sahu v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shyamnath Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Prabha Bakshi Vs Chhattisgarh State Power and Ors.

Abdul Saban Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Sanjay Kumar Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rewa Ram Tamrakar Vs State Govt.of Chhattisgarh and Another