EMPLOYEES MUST BE DESIGNATED AS SUPERINTENDENTS, SECTION HEADS, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS, STAFF ASSISTANTS, HEAD CLERKS OR SUPERVISORS AND MUST BE WORKING IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY IN ORDER TO BE CATEGORIZED AS SUPERINTENDENTS UNDER THE GENERAL INSURANCE (RATIONALISATION AND REVISION OF PAY SCALES AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF SUPERVISORY, CLERICAL AND SUBORDINATE STAFF) SCHEME, 1974.

In this application the petitioners, who are several in numbers, are the employees holding the post of Senior Assistants in the Unit of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. They were originally the employees of the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. prior to its natinalisation and taking over by the Government of this insurance business. The petitioners complain in this application under Article 226 if the Constitution that all Special Assistants should be categorized as Superintendents under the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Supervisory. Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974. The main grievance of the petitioners seems to be that there has been violation of Clause (5) of the said Scheme. The said Scheme, as amended, now provides as follows :

" (5) Categorisation of employees : (1) The employees shall be categoriesd into the appropriate categories on the basis of their substantive positions and nature of work as on the 1st day of January, 1975 as specified in sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).

(2) (a) Superintendents : Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the following shall be eligible to be considered as Superintendents, namely :

(i) All those designed as Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents, Staff Assistants, Head Clerk’s or Supervisor and working in a supervisory capacity ;

(ii)

(iii) all those employees with specific scales or qualifications specially recruited in a position equivalent to one of those mentioned in sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (ii)."

Therefore, in order to be designated as Superintendents, which the petitioners claim, the petitioners must, in the facts and circumstances be working either as Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents, Staff Assistants. Head Clerks or Supervisors and must be working in the supervisory capacity. The petitioners contend that the petitioners nature of work were in the nature of supervisory work and therefore they were working in the supervisory capacities. This position is factually disputed by the respondents. For the purpose of this application, it is not necessary for me to go into this question. It is necessary to consider whether the petitioners had been designated is Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents, Staff Assistants, Head Clerks or Supervisors. None of the petitioners, it is the admitted case, were designated as such on the relevant date. Therefore, whether, they did work in the supervisory capacities or not is, in my opinion, is sufficient to defeat the claim of the petitioners agitated in this case. The petitioners have further contended that three was a modification of this Scheme and the modification was not placed for the assent of the President. This allegation has been made in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the petition and it is not necessary for me to go into this aspect of modification.

2. It was then contended that there was a discrimination. It is difficult to appreciate this allegation of discrimination in the scheme because certain categories of workmen, who were given certain designations and had been performing certain types of work were given this right. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that the petitioners were not performing the work of the supervisory functions. As I have mentioned before, it is not necessary, in the view I have taken to go into this aspect of the matter.

3. It is secondly urged that all the necessary parties were not before this Court, whose rights would be affected, if the petitioners grievances were accepted. On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted that the petitioners were not agitating against any particular employees or were asking for a placement above any particular employee. Therefore, there was no question of not joining all the necessary parties. In this connection reliance was placed on certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M.S.C. Railway v. A.