1. Inter se seniority dispute between Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner in same grade under Central Labour (Service) Rules 1987. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 654
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
R.Shanti Charan
Versus
T.Koteswara Rao
Case No. : 467 of 1999
Date of Decision : 4/10/01
Where service rules mandate that seniority be determined by regular continuous service in a grade, and multiple designations are clubbed within that single grade, service rendered in any of those designations counts toward the overall continuous length of service in that grade.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Central Labour (Service) Rules 1987 - Rules 2(c), 2(g), 9(1) and Schedule I - Inter se seniority - Determination of seniority based on length of regular continuous service in the grade - Where different posts are categorized within the same grade under the service rules, the service rendered in any of those posts constitutes continuous length of service in the grade for the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the inter se seniority between a Labour Officer and an Assistant Welfare Commissioner. Under the service rules, the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were classified within the same grade (Grade V). An employee who had been appointed as a Labour Officer and subsequently as an Assistant Labour Commissioner sought to have the service rendered as a Labour Officer counted toward the continuous length of service in the grade for seniority purposes. The Tribunal had ruled that only the continuous length of service as an Assistant Labour Commissioner should be taken into account.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal committed an error in interpreting the rules. Since both the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner are specified in the same grade, the service rendered as a Labour Officer prior to appointment as an Assistant Welfare Commissioner must be counted for determining seniority, as the rules specifically identify regular continuous service in the grade as the determining factor.
Issues: Whether the service rendered by an employee as a Labour Officer can be counted as continuous length of service in the grade for the purpose of determining seniority when both the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner are clubbed together in the same grade.
Ratio Decidendi: In terms of the recruitment rules, continuous length of service in the grade is the determining factor for seniority. Because the positions of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner reside in the same grade, there is no legal basis to exclude service rendered in one from being counted toward seniority in the cadre upon appointment to the other.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether service as Labour Officer counts as continuous grade service for seniority after appointment as Assistant Labour Commissioner. (Para 2 )
3. Rule 9(1) determines seniority by regular continuous service in the grade; Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner are same grade. (Para 2 )
4. Continuous length of service in the grade is the determining factor for reckoning seniority, not only service in a particular post. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal set aside. (Para 2 )
6. What determines inter se seniority under the Central Labour (Service) Rules 1987?
Regular continuous service in the grade, not service in a particular post, determines inter se seniority under Rule 9(1) of the Rules. (Para 2 )
G.B.PATTANAIK, J.
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dealing with the question of inter se seniority between the Labour Officer and Assistant Welfare Commissioner. By a notification dated 3/2/1987, a set of rules were framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called the Central Labour (Service) Rules 1987. Section 2(c) of the said Rule defines the "departmental candidates" to mean all the existing officers holding Group A posts recruited under the dif ferent Rules enumerated therein. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) were being recruited under the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Recruitment Rules,1958, whereas Labour Officers were being recruited under the Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules 1951. Rule 2(g) defines "Grade" to mean a Grade specified in Column 2 of Schedule I. Schedule I, Item 5 indicates Grade V, which includes the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) as well as the Labour Officer and Assistant Welfare Commissioner. It is thus apparent that the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules deals with the seniority. Seniority:-
(1) "The inter se seniority of the officers appointed to the various Grades mentioned in Schedule 1 at the initial constitution stage of the Service under Rule 6, shall be determined according to the length of regular continuous service in the Grade subject to maintenance in the respective Grades of inter se seniority of officers recruited under the Rules mentioned in Clause (c) of Rule 2."
(2) THE real question that arises for consideration is whether a person who had been appointed as a Labour Officer subsequent to 31/12/1972, and then had been appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner, and was continuing as such Assistant Labour Commissioner on the date the aforesaid recruitment Rules came into force, and two posts were clubbed together, the services rendered by such employee as Labour Office? could be counted as continuous length of service in the grade in terms of Rules 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules? Proviso to Rule 9 (1) speaks of the Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner recruited prior to 31/12/1972 with which proviso we are not concerned in the present case. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment, while interpreting the Rule 9 (1), has come to the conclusion that it is the continuous length of service as Assistant Labour Commissioner, which shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in terms of Rule 9 (1). Obviously, the Tribunal has committed error inasmuch the Rule 9 (1) specifically indicates that the regular continuous service in the grade would be the determining factor. Since admittedly Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade, there is no rhyme and reason not to count the services rendered as Labour Officer prior to the incumbent being appointed as Assistant Welfare Commissioner for determining his seniority in the cadre. The conclusion of the Tribunal, therefore, is contrary to the plain meaning of the Rule 9 (1) of the Recruitment Rule, which governs the question of seniority. In our view, the continuous length of service in the grade is the determining factor for the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(3) SHRI Koteswara Rao respondent no. 1 did not appear in spite of due service of notice. On the last occasion, when the matter had reached before us because a prayer had been made, we had directed issuance of fresh notice, and it appears notice has been issued on 13/1/2001, and more than 2 months have elapsed in the meantime. We, therefore, hold that the notice must be deemed to have been duly served.
