Raj Kumar Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1995 Latest Caselaw 488 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

(1) The Petitioner, a Loud Speaker Operator employed with the Respondent- Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by this writ petition challenges the order bearing No. 560/M.S. dated 26.2.1993, retiring him from service w.e.f. .31.8.1993, on attaining the age of 58 years. The Petitioner contends that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of Fundamental Rules (for short 'F.R.') 56 (b) and is therefore liable to be retired only upon attaining the age of 60 years.

(2) The Petitioner was appointed as an Electric Mistri vide an appointment letter bearing No.2994/N.W./EEE dated 8.2.1960 in the scale of 60-105. The appointment was a temporary one. The Petitioner thereafter continued in service and was promoted as Assistant Loud Speaker Operator in the grade of 180-380 vide an order bearing No. 37/Engg./EST dated 1.2.71. Finally vide an order dated 10.9.1984 the Petitioner was designated as Loud Speaker Operator ('LSO') with a revised pay scale of 425-700 per month.

(3) The Petitioner's contention is.that the promotions were only a change in designation with revised pay scale, but he continued to do the job of an Electrician repairing electric goods, loud speakers, amplifiers with his own hands. The Petitioner status that his duties were to Fix, adjust and operate loud speakers and amplifiers, to do temporary and permanent electric wiring. In addition to the above duties, he was to do all other duties as an electrician whenever required by superiors and Electrical Engineer. The Petitioner further contends that his job is technical job of an electrician. He has to work with his own hands and tools.

(4) The Petitioner also cites the instance of an Electrician Mr. R.D.Mishra, who was initially sought to be retired at the age of 58 years, but upon representation was allowed by the Respondent to continue up to the age of the 60 years. Further that as a result of interim orders passed by this Court in the cases of Shri Dharam Pal and Shri Ram Charan writ petitions bearing No. 1466 of 1992 and 1189 of 1992, the said employees who were Electricians were allowed to continue beyond the age of 58 years.

(5) The Respondents have furnished the list of duties of an Electrician and those of Loud Speaker operator. These are :

"ELECTRICIAN-

MAINTAINING of building, repair of electric connections, repair of tubewell etc.

LOUD Speaker Operator

1)To maintain & operate the Loud Speaker (L.S.) and Public address (P.A.) system in Town Hall which include the following.

A)L.S. & P.A. system in meeting Hall

B)L.S. & P.A. system in Rangshala.

C)Public announcement system in Town Hall.

2)To provide and operate the L.S. & P.A. system at the functions held in Town Hall.

3)To maintain the L.S. & P.A. equipment in stock with him.

4)To supervise the maintenance of 20 line intercom set provided in Town Hall.

5)To maintain one wireless receiver set at Town Hall."

(6) He Petitioner's case thus is that his duties and job is primarily that of an Electrician, involving manual work. He is a workman eligible to the benefit under Rule 56(b). It is common ground that Fundamental Rules apply to the employees of the Respondent Corporation. The Respondent in their counter on the other hand have denied that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits of F.R. 56(b).

AS per the Respondent, Lso cannot be termed as an artisan. There is hardly any physical involvement or manual work in the operation of the Loud Speaker. He has to . handle the equipment with deftness and dexterity. The clement of manual labour is minimum.

THE Learned Counsel for Respondent has argued that the job of the Petitioner is not merely plugging in the Loud Speakers. He has to examine the whole site and make adjustments to ensure proper dispersal of sound. It has therefore to be seen whether the Petitioner while performing the duties of a Lso, would fall within the definition of workman under Rule 56(b).

(7) F.R. 5C) may be usefully reproduced:-

"F.R.56.

(A)Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon on the last day of the month on which he attains the age of 58 years.

(B)A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.

NOTE: In this clause, a workman means a highly skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work charged establishment.

(C)A ministerial Government servant who entered Government service on or before the 31st March, 1938 and held on that date:

(I)a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post, or

(II)a permanent post in a provisional substantive capacity under Clause (d) of Rule 14 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years,

NOTE:-For the purpose of this clause the expression "Government service" include service rendered in a former provincial Government.

(CC)A workman referred to in Clause (b) or a ministerial Government servant referred to in Clause (c) may be granted extension of service, under very special circumstances to be recorded in writing, after he attains the age of sixty years with the sanction of the appropriate authority.

(D)A Government servant to whom Clause (a) applies other than a workman referred to in Clause (b) or a ministerial Govt. servant referred to in Clause (c), may be granted extension of service after he attains the age of fifty-eight years with the sanction of the appropriate authority if such extension is in the public interest and the grounds therefore are recorded in writing;

PROVIDED that no extension under this Clause shall be granted beyond the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances.

(E)A Government servant in Class Iv service or post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years".

(8) A Full Bench of this Court in Het Ram Gaud Vs. Mcd, C. W.No. 1199 of 1992 . reported at , had the occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'workman' as contained in F.R.56(b) read with the note appended to the said provision. The principles and criteria as laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court in so far as they apply to the present case may be stated as under:-

1.The meaning of the work 'workman' as it appears in Rule 56(b) is a restrictive one and the wide meaning given under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be extended to it because of the note appended to 56(b).

2.The object of 56(b) appears to give an extended period of service to persons performing primarily manual duties and to those in the lower category of posts having lower scales of pay as would be evident from its being made applicable to class Iv employees.

3.For availing the benefit under F.R.56 (b), a workman has to be an artisan, skilled or otherwise, but one who is predominantly engaged in manual work besides he should be on a monthly rated pay and working in an industrial or work- charged establishment.

4.The predominant nature of work is to be seen where the work performed is manual and other work. Apart 'from the nature of work the object of the work performed is to be considered.

(9) Before applying the aforesaid tests, it would be pertinent to examine the nature of the duties performed by the Loud Speaker Operator to determine if the work involved is the same as that of an ordinary electrician, as contended by the Petitioner or it is such as requires skill and dexterity and other attributes which are not manual, which would take it out of the ambit of 'workman' under F.R.56 (h). The duties of an electrician as furnished by the Respondent as stated inter alia are maintaining of building, repair of electric connections, repair of tubewell etc. These ar.e predominantly physical and manual in nature. Accordingly, the Electrician has been held to be in artisan a workman and artisan entitled to the benefit of F.R. 56(b). As . against this. the Loud Speaker Operator is to do the duties reproduced in para (6) above which, inter alia, include maintaining and operating o.f Loud Speakers and public address system in the various meetings and functions held by the Respondent/ Corporation. Besides supervising the maintenance of intercom sets in the two halls, wireless receiver set at town hall.

(10) As per Strouds dictionary, a Loud Speaker js an apparatus which is electrically driven for the purpose of reproducing sound over a wide area. In the Webster's dictionary, it is defined as a device that converts electrical impulses into sound, loud enough to be heard some distance away, as incorporated in a radio or public address system. From the nature of the duties of the Loud Speaker Operator, it would he seen that his work involves the arrangement of the speakers, assessing the dislancc as well as location so as to disburse sound over the required area. He has to control and adjust the volume of the amplifiers from rime to lime. He would have to regulate 'the baffle to modulate the pitch of sound. He has to ensure that there is no screeching sound or overlapping of sound waves. It would be seen from the foregoing that the duties of the Loud Speaker Operator are such which require a lot of skill and dexterity. The job also involves planning, assessment of the space and distance. It requires intelligence, initiative and other attributes which arc not physical and manual in nature. In fact there is hardly any manual work. It may be noticed here that the Counsel for the Petitioner had urged that the Loud Speaker Operator had to move the Loud Speaker/mike. A minimum amount of manual work would be present in almost all vocations. The Loud Speaker Operator as noticed is in the regular revised basic pay scale of Rs. 425-700 per month and therefore he satisfies the lest of monthly rated pay.

CONSIDERING the nature of the duties and work of the Loud Speaker Operator as discussed above which requires skill, dexterity, planning imagination and assessment, it is not. mechanical or manual in nature. The Loud Speaker Operator, in our view, , cannot be termed as an artisan entitled to the benefits of F.R.56(b). The cases namely; those of Dharam Pal and Ram Charan i.e. C.W.P. Nos.l466/92 and 1189/92 are cases of Electrician and would not advance the Petitioner's case in view of the nature of the duties of Loud Speaker Operator as discussed above. The Petitioner therefore cannot be given the benefit of superannuation up to the age of 60 years and has been rightly retired on attaining the age of 58 years. The Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.