Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs The Workmen C/O Water And Sewage ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1190 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi in I.D. Case No.85/1987. By the aforesaid award the Tribunal issued a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to fix the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.380-560 from the date the report of the Third Pay Commission was implemented by the petitioner.

2. The Laboratory Technicians working with the Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal Undertaking were getting the pay scale of Rs.130-300 prior to the year 1973. The said Undertaking is a legal entity by itself and has its own Service Rules. In the meantime the Third Pay Commission was constituted and it gave the recommendations regarding pay structures. In the meeting of Delhi Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal Undertaking held on 17.2.1975 it was resolved that the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission for various posts including the posts of Laboratory Technicians would be implemented in the manner of its decision. In accordance with the said decision the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.130-300 of Laboratory Technicians and some other staff was converted to pay scale of Rs.330-560. Pursuant to the said decision almost all employees of the General Wing of Municipal Corporation who were working in the pay scale of Rs.130-300 were given the revised pay scale of Rs.330-560. The respondent Union however, raised a demand by their letter dated 18.4.1985 that they should be given the pay scale of Rs.380-560. The respondent Union however, raised a demand by their letter dated 18.4.1985 that they should be given the pay sale of Rs.380-560. The respondent Union however, raised a demand by their letter dated 18.4.1985 that they should be given the pay scale of Rs.380-560 instead of Rs.330-560 pursuant to and in accordance with the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. The said demand of the Union was not accepted by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not in consonance with the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. Being aggrieved, the Union approached the Conciliation Officer with the demand. Thereafter at the instance of the said Union the State Government referred the following dispute to the Industrial Court:

"Whether the Laboratory Technicians are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.380-560. If so what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. The respondent Union filed a Statement of Claim and the petitioner management also filed their written statement. Witnesses were examined and thereafter by the impugned award the Tribunal directed the management to fix the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.380-560 from the date the report of the Third Pay Commission was implemented by the management. A further direction was issued to the management to make payment of the arrears to the workmen within three months of the award becoming enforceable. Being aggrieved by the said award the present writ petition was filed in this court and while issuing notice the operation of the impugned award was stayed by this court.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the pay scale which is ordered to be granted to the members of the respondent Union was a pay scale which was recommended by the Third Pay Commission for the promotional level posts from the post in which the respondents are placed. It was also submitted by him that the award passed by the Tribunal holding that the members of the respondent Union are entitled for the scale of Rs.380-560 is illegal and erroneous as it is not for the court or the Tribunal to enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like, the Pay Commission etc., and it is for the said authority to equate posts and determine the pay scales. It was also submitted that it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent however, submitted that on the basis of the record including the evidence and the witnesses examined by the management, the Tribunal has come to a definite finding that the members of the respondent Union are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 which was also the pay scale prescribed for persons discharging similar duties and responsibilities and therefore, there is no error in the award passed by the Tribunal. He also submitted that an attempt should always be made by Courts exercising powers of judicial review to sustain as far as possible the awards made by industrial tribunals instead of picking holes here and there in the awards on trivial points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the tribunals by striking down awards on hyper-technical grounds. In support of the aforesaid contention the counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Sadhu Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation; and Calcutta Port Shramik Union Vs. The Calcutta River Transport Association and others; .

6. So far the contention of the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the High Court should not lightly interfere with the findings of the Tribunal is concerned, suffices it to state that the High Court can exercise such jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact the court has always exercised jurisdiction when there was manifest or apparent error of law and also when the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.

7. It is an admitted position that earlier the members of the Union and working as Laboratory Technician were placed in the pay scale of Rs.130-300. At that stage no grievance was raised by the members of the respondent Union. It is to be noted that the members of the respondent Union are the employees under the petitioner and the petitioner is a separate legal entity and the service conditions of the members of the respondent Union are governed by the Rules framed by the petitioner Corporation. After the constitution of the Third Pay Commission certain recommendations were given by the said Commission which were accepted by the Central Government w.e.f. 1.1.1973. One of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission relates to the pay structure in the various grades of scientific staff. The Pay Commission recommended that having regard to the qualifications that are generally prescribed and the nature of work and is performed by various grades of scientific staff, four levels be created to cover the requirements for the scientific staff. Level I was recommended to be corresponding to the existing grade of Rs.325-575 and level II was recommended to be corresponding to the existing grade of Rs.210-425. Admittedly, in the present writ petition, I am not concerned with the aforesaid level posts. Level III posts, according to the recommendation would correspond to the existing grade of Rs.150-300. The Commission was of the view that the aforesaid grade would normally be a promotion grade for the lower staff such at Laboratory Assistants/Laboratory Technicians who should with experience and, if necessary, after appropriate training, be able to discharge the duties of these posts adequately. On the basis of the aforesaid observations the Pay Commission recommended the standard scale of pay for the existing scale at level III at existing scale of Rs.150-300 to Rs.380-560 which would be level III posts, and the qualifications of recruitment laid down were that the same scale would apply for Scientific Laboratories and in Production and Inspection Organizations and that it should normally be a promotion grade only and that posts engaged in non-laboratory work should be in the scale of Rs.330-560. It is also to be mentioned that the aforesaid scale of Rs.330-560 was earlier the scale of Rs.130-300 which was converted to Rs.330-560. As noted above, the report of the Third Pay Commission was implemented by the Government for its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1973. The petitioner adopted the broad patter of the Government scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission. However, while doing so, so far the members of the respondent Union are concerned who are working in the posts of Laboratory Technicians the pay scale prescribed by the petitioner was Rs.330-560. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that for level III posts the Third Pay Commission contemplated that the aforesaid grade of Rs.380-560 would be given to the posts which should be promotion grade from Laboratory Technicians and therefore, according to the counsel the same scale could not have been given to the Laboratory Technicians as the said pay scale was meant for their promotion cadre.

8. Therefore, the issue that the arises for my consideration is the fitment of proper pay scale for the posts of Laboratory Technicians. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court considered the consequences of equal pay for equal work and held thus:-

"We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same."

The court further held thus:

"It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay."

9. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, . In the said decision the Supreme Court however held thus:-

"The courts must however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees.

.....

.....

Several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well."

10. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in Suryanarayan Sahu etc. Vs. The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Civil Appeal No.507/1993 disposed of on 25.11.1997. In the said decision the Supreme Court referred to the case of Randhir Singh (Supra) and many other cases and thereafter held that the situation that emerges from the large catena of decisions of the Supreme Court is that CSIR is not bound to adopt the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission and it is not material if the Central Government accepted the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. The same principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case also. Municipal Corporation of Delhi is an independent body having its own service rules. Therefore, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not bound to adopt the same pay scale as given to the Laboratory Technicians working in Central Government. There is hardly any evidence on record also to show that the work of Laboratory Technicians in the Central Government Departments is similar to that of the Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal Undertaking., From a comparative reading of the earlier pay scales given to the members of the respondent Union and the corresponding pay scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission shows that the pay scale of Rs.130-300 was replaced by the pay scale of Rs.300-560 which is the pay scale prescribed by the petitioner for the members of the respondent Union. The proposed pay scale of Rs.380-560 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission was meant for the employees working in the existing scale of Rs.150-300. The recommendation of the Third Pay Commission was also that the aforesaid scale of Rs.380-560 would apply in the case of employees in Scientific Laboratories which would normally be a promotion grade only. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that the Laboratory Technicians fulfill the conditions of pay scale of Rs.380-560 as provided in the report of the Third Pay Commission only on the basis of the evidence of management witness No.1. According to the Tribunal the said witness admitted in his cross-examination that Laboratory Technicians are allotted certain jobs by the sectional heads which they carry out independently and put up to the Sectional Heads and that a Laboratory Technician is not merely a helping hand but does his job independently and the job is for complete water and sewerage analysis which our Laboratory Assistants/Technicians can do any where successfully.

11. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal committed manifest error of law in coming to the conclusion merely on the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record. As a matter of fact no such evidence is placed on record to prove and establish that the Laboratory Technicians like the members of the respondent Union fulfill and conditions for the pay scale of Rs.380-560 as provided in the report of the Third Pay Commission. In absence of such evidence, it was not proper for the Tribunal to recommend the said pay scale for the members of the respondent Union. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal to give scale of pay of Rs.380-560 to the members of the respondent Union with effect from the date when the report of the Third Pay Commission was implemented by the management, cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

12. In the result, grant of pay scale of Rs.330-560 stands upheld. The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi stands set aside to the aforesaid extent. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.