A senior employee cannot receive lesser pay than a junior in comparable roles, establishing principles of employment equity.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 02.01.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.196 of 2009 titled Chief Engineer BSL Project, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. The General Secretary, BSL Project Mazdoor Ekta Union and others, whereby the writ petition preferred by it was dismissed and the award dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh was upheld. Since predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2(i) to (iii) namely Amar Nath was denied the benefit of stepping up of basic pay with his Junior Labh Singh and not having removed the anomaly, he raised the dispute and the Central Government made a reference for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, which is to the following effect:

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB represented through Chief Engineer BSNL/BBMB, Sundernagar in denying the benefits of stepping up of basic pay of Sh. Amar Nath, Chargeman, Gr.1 with his junior Sh. Labh Singh, Chargeman Spl. W.e.f. 1.1.88 and not removing the anomaly is fair & just? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”

2. The precise grouse of the workman-Amar Nath, was that he is senior to Labh Singh in service, but the management of the appellant had fixed his pay at Rs.1530/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1988, whereas his junior Labh Singh was given pay of Rs.1640/- per month and when the management of the appellant did not accept his plea, he raised the demand notice. The plea which was taken by the management was to the effect that workman-Amar Nath and Sh. Labh Singh did not fall in the same category and both of them had served in different categories.

3. It was not disputed that workman-Amar Nath was appointed as a Chargeman misc. on 25.07.1974 and subsequently promoted as Chargeman Grade-I on 01.10.1976, whereas Labh Singh was appointed as Chargeman Special Grade-I on 08.01.1977. Admittedly, he was junior to the workman-Amar Nath.

4. The plea of management was that workman- Amar Nath got one promotion from the date of his appointment and, therefore, he was entitled to time bound promotion after 16 years of service, whereas Labh Singh did not get any promotion and thus he was given time bound promotion on 01.01.1988. Further the plea of the management was that the time bound promotional scales are admissible only in respect of the post in which the initial induction is through direct recruitment. Since the workman-Amar Nath got promotion in his service career, he was required to wait till completion of 16 years. It is not in dispute that both the workman-Amar Nath and Labh Singh got step up on 01.01.1986 raising their pay to Rs.1440/- per month. Labh Singh got first time bound promotion on 01.01.1988 raising his pay to Rs.1640/- per month, whereas, workman-Amar Nath remained at the stage of Rs.1530/- per month. Sh. Labh Singh got two times benefit of proficiency step up on 01.01.1986 and thereafter 1st Time Bound Scale on 01.01.1988, whereas the workman-Amar Nath was not granted the 1st Time Bound Scale on 01.01.1988 and he was granted the said scale after completion of 16 years of service w.e.f. 25.07.1990. These facts have been admitted by the management and mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition in a tabulated form. The same reads as under:-

5. The further plea raised by the management was that since both wo