The court upheld the propriety of the circular fixing the cutoff date for promotion based on the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission, emphasizing the removal of disparity among Grade-E employees appointed till 15th June, 1970.

BY COURT: The petitioner has challenged the award of learned Labour Court, Ranchi rendered in Ref. Case No.8 of 1998. By the impugned award, learned Labour Court has answered the reference in negative.

2. The case of the petitioner-Union is that a dispute was raised on behalf of 81 workmen, claiming, inter alia, that the concerned workmen were appointed by the Management in Grade-E on different dates between the period from 15th June, 1970 to 31st December, 1970. In the said process, about 300 technical hands, including 81 workmen concerned, were appointed between the period from April, 1968 to 31st December, 1970 on different dates in different grades, namely, Cutter, Fitter, Mechanist, Turner etc. All were in Grade-E having same scale of pay and benefits. They were posted at different places. Some were posted in H.M.T.P. Plant, some in F.F.P. and some were in H.M.B.P. Plant of the H.E.C. Ltd. All concerned workmen, being born on same grade in the scale of pay, were promoted to the next higher grade C.D. with effect from 13th August, 1977 and given higher pay scale irrespective of their different dates of appointment. Again in 1984, the said concerned workmen along with others belonging to C.D. Grade were given promotion to higher pay scale with effect from 11th December, 1984. In the year 1984 itself, the Management had appointed one Dr. Binod Kumar to review and advice the promotion policy for non-executive employees of H.E.C. Dr. Binod Kumar submitted his report on 27th July, 1985. The Management by Circular No.53/85 dated 14th October, 1985 accepted and implemented the report of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission with effect from 14th October, 1985. The policy evolved by the said report remained in force for ten years. During that period, the Management issued circular dated 27th July, 1998 for giving promotion to those appointed in Grade-E during the period from 1967 to 1970 to remove the disparity in career growth of I.T.I passed and H.T.I. trained apprentices. Clause-A(2) of the said circular provided as follows:

“A(2)the apprentices who joined H.E.C. in Grade-E during the period 4.4.68 to 15.6.70 and under still continuing in Grade B may be considered for promotion to Grade A and if found suitable they may be promoted to Grade A notionally with effect from 28.12.85.”

3. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Committee was constituted to remove disparity, but failed to clear disparity and the same is arbitrary and contrary to the object to be achieved by the Committee. The same also created a class within the class on the basis of their date of appointment. By the said circular those appointed prior to 15th June, 1970 were given promotion to Grade-A with effect from 28th December, 1985 on higher pay scale, whereas the concerned workmen were made to stagnate in Grade-B in the lower pay scale. The same would also have the effect in promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Foreman and, thereafter, to the post of Junior Manager. As the concerned workmen were promoted to Grade-A in 1990 and Assistant Foreman in 1996, they made demand of justice from the Management though the Union. They also filed application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner endeavoured to conciliate the dispute, but conciliation failed and the dispute was referred for adjudication in the following terms:

“Whether the up-gradation/promotion given to the workmen working in Grade-E, only in Grade-A, with effect from 28th December, 1995 by fixing 15th June, 1970 as the cutoff date by the Management of M/s. H.E.C., Dhurwa, Ranchi is proper? If not, what relief, the workmen upon joining after 15th June, 1970 are entitled to and from when?”

5. The Management contested the claim by filing written statement, stating, inter alia, that the candidate having I.T.I. Training as also those who had taken training in the Central Training Institute subsequently named as H.E.C. Training Institute were also employed in d