SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Raj) 73

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Arun Kumar,Prakash Tatia
Chairman and M.D.Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Bhola Ram - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 206 & 242 of 2001
Decided On : 01/11/2002

Advocates Appeared:
L.M. Lodha, for the Appellant
S.K.M. Vyas, for the Respondents

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definitions of 'existing pay scale' and 'existing employee' as per the RSEB Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978.

Headnote:

Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33-C(2) - RSEB Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978 - 5. Definitions: 'Existing pay Scale' means scales of pay applicable to an employee, but for the coming into force of these regulations, in respect of a post held by him on April 1, 1974, substantively or in officiating capacity while retaining lien on a permanent post, or in a temporary capacity. 'Existing Employee' means an employee who is in service on April 1, 1974 and drawing pay in the existing pay scales

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an employee of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board, approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking grant of advance increment. The Labour Court found in favor of the employer, upholding the order withdrawing the special advance increment and recovery made from the workman. The workman's application was rejected, but the Labour Court clarified the fixation of the workman's salary at the minimum of the pay-scale with effect from April 1, 1974.

Finding of the Court:

The writ petition filed by the workman was allowed, while the writ petition filed by the RSEB was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appeals against the Judgment of the learned single Judge were also dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent fell within the definition of 'existing pay scale' and 'existing employee' as per the RSEB Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent was in an 'existing pay-scale' and an 'existing employee' as per the definitions in the Regulations, based on the employee's appointment and pay-scale as of April 1, 1974, and continuous service for more than two years.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Arun Kumar, CJ.-These appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated December 12, 2000. The respondent is an employee of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in short ‘RSEB’ hereinafter). He had approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. His application was decided by the Labour Court which found in favour of the employer that the workman was not entitled to grant of advance increment of Rs. 10/-on his regular appointment with effect from April 1, 1974 and, therefore, the order withdrawing the special advance increment and recovery made in pursuance thereof from the workman was upheld. The application of the workman was rejected. However, before parting with the case, the Labour Court clarified that the order would mean that the salary of the workman shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 370-10-450-12-570 with effect from April 1, 1974 and not on Rs. 380/-; but by getting regular increments from that stage when he reaches the stage of Rs. 400/-, the next increment shall be of Rs. 30/-.

2. The said order of the Labour Court was challenged by the workman as well as by the RSEB by way of two separate writ petitions. These writ petitions came to be decided by the order under reference passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petition filed by the workman was allowed while the writ petition filed by the RSEB was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The RSEB through its successor has filed both these appeals against the Judgment of the learned single Judge.

3. Theonly point which the learned Counsel for the appellants argued in these appeals was that the workman could not be called an existing employee nor he could be said to be in an existing pay-scale as per the definitions of these words contained in RSEB Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978. The relevant regulations are reproduced as under:

“5. Definitions:

In these regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:

.(i) ‘Existingpay Scale’ means scales of pay applicable to an employee, but for the coming into force of these regulations, in respect of a post held by him on April 1, 1974, substantively or in officiating capacity while retaining lien on a permanent post, or in a temporary capacity.

.(ii) ‘Existing Employee’ means an employee who is in service on April 1, 1974 and drawing pay in the

existing pay scales”. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent neither held a post in substantive or officiating capacity nor he was in any regular pay-scale on April 1, 1974 and, therefore, he did not fall within the definition of the words ‘existing pay scale’ as quoted above. To appreciate this argument, a few dates are necessary. The respondent employee was appointed as a work-charged painter at the rate of Rs. 4/-per day in the office of the Executive Engineer, RSEB vide order dated November 7, 1970. There were disputes between the employer and the employees which led to an Award dated May 31, 1978 called the Singh & Sancheti Award. As per para 14 of the Award, the technical workmen engaged/recruited on work-charged/daily-rated/muster-roll/casual excluding those covered by classification of EHT Trade/Wing as referred to in the Memorandum of Settlement dated June 8, 1971 between the Board and the PVMMF, who have completed two years or more continuous service and have been continuously in the Board’s service, on the completion of such service have not been fixed in the regular pay-scales shall be given regular pay scales from the dates mentioned below against each classification with due regard to the trade. The relevant entry of the table reads as under: “Classification (period of Date from which service) Regular Pay Scale to be given iii) Those who have April 1, 1974 completed two years or more continuous service upto/as on March 31, 1974 and have been continuously in Board’s service thereafter. was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 370-10-450




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top