Allowed

The Personnel Officer, v. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Telangana HC23 Aug 2012WP/19609/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal was only referred to adjudicate pay anomaly but awarded a benefit to the petitioner by equating an illegal personal increment of a junior employee to substantive pay. This conferred an illegal benefit beyond the reference's scope, constituting an error apparent on the face

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of the Tribunal is quashed.

The Personnel Officer, Vs Industrial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.19609 OF 1999

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No.372 of 1995 dated 11.12.1998, as illegal. The Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.

¶4

Whether the action of the zonal workshop, APSRTC, Vizianagaram is justified?

¶5

i. fixing the scale of pay of Sri D. Nageswararao, Coach builder, E.77580 of Zonal Workshop, APSTRC, Vizianagarm which resulted in pay anomaly and monetary loss to him as per pay Revised Scales, 1989 and 1993?

¶6

In its award dated 11.12.1998, the Tribunal noted that two events occurred on 01.04.1999; the first was the promotion of the 2^nd respondent herein to the post of Coach Builder Gr-I consequent upon abolishing of Gr-II; the other event was implementation of pay revision with effect from that date. The Tribunal observed that, though the workman had failed to give further details of his claim, it could address the dispute under reference; ascertain whether there was any anomaly in fixing the pay of workman as per the Revised Pay Scales 1989 and 1993 based on the evidence adduced by the management; the evidence of the management would throw light on this aspect more so when it is unrebutted; and it could be relied upon. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence of MW-1, and observed that the pay anomaly was straight away made out from his evidence as he had stated that the pay of Sri K. Krishna Paramathma was fixed at Rs.1525/- while the pay of the 2^nd respondent was fixed at Rs.1500/- as on 01.04.1989; and Sri Krishna Paramathma was junior to the 2^nd respondent. The

¶7

Tribunal then extracted a portion of the evidence of MW-1 which reads as under:

¶8

“The basis for fixing the basic of Krishna Paramatma at Rs.1525/- was his total emoluments at Rs.1480/- comprised of basic pay as on 01.04.1989 that is Rs.645+DA on the said basic pay+DA on family planning personal pay + Additional DA as on 01.01.1988 on pay as also personal pay and the substantive DA as on 01.01.1986 plus Rs.45/- of fitment benefit plus Rs.20/- weightage. The present workman’s total emoluments on the eve of fitment are arrived at Rs.1476/- comprised of basic pay of Rs.645/- plus DA of Rs.550.40 plus additional DA as on 01.01.88 amounting to Rs.218.80 on pay and substantive DA as on 1.1.86 plus usual Rs.45/and weightage increment of Rs.20/- Krishna Paramatma was given the additional benefit of additional DA on the DA on family planning increment while calculating the total emoluments forming the basis for his fixation”.

¶9

The Tribunal observed that the petitioner herein had lifted the status of a family planning increment to the position of a substantive increment; such kind of reckoning was inconsistent with the concept of family incentive increment which was purposely shown as personal pay; while it could not reduce the pay of Krishna Paramatma, such kind of equation of family planning incentive increment with substantive increment was wrong; and the anomaly of the petitioner’s pay had arisen solely on account of the excess of Rs.4/- wrongly given to Krishna Paramathma by the management. The Tribunal further held that the 2^nd respondent’s pay could not be fixed lower than that of his junior Krishna Paramathma; and this had resulted in the pay anomaly to his detriment. Consequently an award was passed declaring the action of the management, in fixing the petitioner’s pay lower than that of his junior Krishna Paramathma, to be wrong. The management was directed to step up the pay of the 2^nd respondent on par with the pay of his junior Krishna Paramathma, and pay all arrears by virtue of the upward revision.

¶10

Industrial Tribunals, which deal with industrial disputes referred to them under Section 10(1) of the Act, are Tribunals with limited jurisdiction. They are entitled to deal with the disputes referred to them,

¶11

but they cannot travel outside the terms of the reference and deal with matters not included therein, subject, of course to incidental matters which fall within their jurisdiction. (Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva^[1] ) . As the jurisdiction which the Tribunal exercises is only in terms of the reference made to it by the appropriate Government, it cannot travel beyond the scope of the said reference. The reference in this case was only on the question whether the 2^nd respondent’s scale of pay had resulted in a pay anomaly and monetary loss to him as per the Revised Scales of Pay 1989 and 1993. The Tribunal has not held that the 2^nd respondent’s pay was wrongly fixed under the Revised Pay Scales of 1989 and 1993. On the other hand it observed that Sri Krishna Paramathma was given an illegal benefit by treating his family planning incentive, (which is a personal pay), to be a substantive pay for the purposes of adding dearness allowance thereto.

¶12

While Sri Arun Kumar Lathker, Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, would seek to justify the pay given to Sri Krishna Paramathma, Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-workman, would contend that the family planning incentive was a personal pay, and could not have been treated by the petitioner as a substantive pay for the purposes of extending the benefit of dearness allowance to Krishna Paramathma and, as Krishna Paramathma was given this monetary benefit, the 2^nd respondent, being senior to him, was rightly entitled to be extended the said benefit.

¶13

It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine whether the family planning incentive, and the consequent increase in dearness allowance extended to Sri Krishna Paramathma was illegal or not. It is

¶14

not even the case of the 2^nd respondent- workman that he was entitled to a family planning incentive or that he had undergone a family planning operation. Even if we were to proceed on the premise that the benefit extended to Sri Krishna Paramathma was illegal, the 2^nd respondent cannot claim that he should also be conferred such illegal benefits, more so as any such conferment is beyond the scope of the reference. If the reference had related to wrong fixation of pay of Sri Krishna Paramathma, the Tribunal may have been justified in reducing Sri Krishna Paramathma’s pay to the appropriate scales of pay. The reference, to the Tribunal, in the present case, does not relate to the wrong fixation of pay of Sri Krishna Paramathma. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the reference and has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing an award conferring an illegal benefit on the 2^nd respondent workman, on the ground that such illegal monetary benefits were extended to Sri Krishna Paramathma. The impugned award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and is, accordingly, quashed.

¶15

The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶16

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶17

23.08.2012

¶18

MRKR

¶19

[1] AIR 1964 SC 752

The Personnel Officer, v. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Personnel Officer, v. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

. Vs -

Deccan Research Park Private Limited Vs -

Alexandria Gachibowli II Tech Park Private Limited Vs -

G.Narayana Reddy, Vs The Regional Joint Director of School Education

G.Parvathalu, Vs Government of a.p.

P.Ramarao, Vs The General Manager