Airport Director, BBSR The workman, represented through the Branch Secretary and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4032 of 2012 Airport Director, BBSR The workman, represented through the Branch Secretary and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner MD. G. Madani, AGA Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Rath, Advocate Order No. 14. CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 29.11.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard MD. G. Madani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.Rath, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties. 3. The present petitioner, who was the 1st Party Management No.1 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubanesar, has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 22.07.2011 passed by Labour Court in ID Case No. 1/2009, by which the Labour Court observed that the action of the Management of the Air Port Authority of India, Bhubaneswar withdrawing the notional increment from the opposite party-workman after two years of promotion is illegal and unjustified and the disputant workman is entitled to get one notional increment of Rs.30/- in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- in the post of House Keeper from the date of his promotion/appointment in the said post and also the annual increment after completion of one year of service. The disputant workman is also entitled to differential amount of wages having fallen due because of withdrawal of notional and annual increment by the 1st Party Management. 4. MD. G. Madani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 1st Page 1 of 4 Party-Management contended that the workman is not entitled to get such benefit and the Tribunal has erroneously granted such benefit while deciding I.D. Case No. 1 of 2009 pursuant to the reference made by the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) of sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, the same needs interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-workman contended that the workman having been granted notional increment, the direction given for withdrawal of the same is illegal and unjustified and as such, the Labour Court is well justified by passing the order impugned, which does not require interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the opposite party-workman being the Branch Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union has filed the statement of claim in which he has stated that he joined as a Fire Operator at Bhubaneswar Air Port on 01.12.1972 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. He was granted non functional scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- after 19 years of service on 01.02.1992. His basic pay was fixed at Rs.1260/- after giving Rs. 10 as fitment benefit as he was drawing basic pay of Rs.1250/- in the previous scale. In the year 1993 the Air Port Authority of India proposed to fill-up the vacant post of House Keeper in Kolkata region by departmental promotion. The 2nd Party-workman applied for the post and appeared in the departmental examination. He was informed about his promotion to the post of House Keeper and he joined the post on 31.08.1994. Accordingly, his pay was fixed in the promotional post on 31.08.1994 as per Rule FR-22c at Rs. 1350/- by giving a notional increment of Rs. 30/- and the same was recorded in the service book. Subsequently, the 1st Party-Management at the time of IDA fixation in 1996 withdrew the notional increment of Rs. 30/- granted to him on promotion to House Keeper without any intimation to the disputant workman. Thereby, the Page 2 of 4 disputant workman espoused his grievance through the 2nd party-Union and thereafter raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. It was contended that the post of House Keeper is attached with higher responsibility while the post of Fire Operator is having less responsibility. FR-22c states that where a Government servant is promoted or appointed in substantive temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued. As per Central Head Quarter's Letter dated 12.08.1994 the appointment orders were issued along with the broad duties and responsibilities of their function. Therefore while fixing the pay of the applicant under the then existing Fundamental Rules, the opposite party-workman was rightly given one notional increment as per FR-22c. During conciliation proceeding the Management tried to justify their action of withdrawal of increment on the ground that the posts of Fire Operator and House Keeper are in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- and there was no promotion and the opposite party- workman was recommended to be appointed in the grade of House Keeper in the same scale of pay. This contention of the Management is erroneous one. Therefore initial scale of pay of Fire Operator is Rs. 950-1500/- and the non functional scale of Rs. 1200 2040/- is given after fifteen years of service. The opposite party- workman after promotion to the post of House Keeper is entitled to get one increment as per the then existing Fundamental Rule. Therefore the same cannot be withdrawn. Therefore, as per the provision of FR-22c once the benefit hs been extended to the workman notionally on being promoted to the post of House Keeper, the same could not have been withdrawn by the authority. More particularly while withdrawing the said benefit, principle of natural justice has not Page 3 of 4 been adhered to and the petitioner has not been issued any notice nor called for any explanation. Therefore, without complying the principle of natural justice, all of a sudden the amount has been withheld, that itself is arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the power of the authority concerned. Therefore, the opposite party workman has raised the industrial dispute. The CGIT-cum-Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that the duties and responsibilities assigned to the post of Fire Operator and House Keeper are distinct and separate. More particularly, the opposite party-workman joined the post of House Keeper by following the process of selection on the basis of application submitted by him. Therefore, as per the provisions of FR-22c, he is entitled to get one increment of notional benefit, which has been extended. The same has been illegally withdrawn. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned, which does not require any interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Nov-2023 10:15:38 Page 4 of 4