Claims for equal pay between directly recruited and promoted Assistants rejected based on service length and pay regulation interpretations, affirming lawful differentiation where settlement clauses do not apply uniformly.

ORDER :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The Petitioner Trade Union represents Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank employees, a registered entity under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Aggrieved by an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 73 of 1999 on 31.12.2002, The Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Employees Union General Secretary filed this writ petition on 29.12.2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was admitted on 20.04.2024.

3. The primary grievance pertains to a pay anomaly where directly recruited Assistants are allegedly paid less than their juniors, promoted Assistants, from the sub-staff cadre in violation of settlement clauses. This is a common issue wherever there are two methods of appointment to a post: one by promotion and the other by direct recruitment. An ongoing conflict often arises when an employee is promoted from a feeder category, and another is appointed directly.

4. The Bank's staff regulation provides for rectifying pay anomalies when a senior employee's pay falls below that of a junior following promotion. In 1985, 70 Assistants were directly recruited at a basic pay of Rs.1,650 with seniority numbers ranging from 0417 to 0486. In 1991, a settlement introduced promotional opportunities for sub-staff with SSLC qualifications and 10 years of experience. Promoted employees were to be placed below directly recruited Assistants in seniority. Subsequently, certain sub-staff employees were promoted to the Assistant cadre and their pay was fixed at levels equal to or above the directly recruited Assistants, creating a pay anomaly. In 1992, discrepancies began when promoted Assistants like G. Kaliaperumal and K. Sethumanickam were given higher basic pay increments (Rs.1915) than the 70 directly recruited seniors (Rs.1755). In 1993, further discrepancies arose when V.R. Chozhan, initially junior to the promoted Assistants, was promoted and his basic pay set at Rs. 2200. Subsequent refixations led to anomalies, leaving the directly recruited Assistants disadvantaged. In 1996, the Union raised the issue with the management through multiple representations requesting the anomaly be rectified by stepping up the pay of directly recruited Assistants to match their juniors. The management refused, claiming no anomaly existed. In 1999, the dispute escalated to the Industrial Tribunal after conciliation failed. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the claim on 31.12.2002 In 2002, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the union’s claim, reasoning that the settlement governing pay adjustments applied only to promotees, not directly recruited employees.

5. The Union contends that the Tribunal erroneously restricted the application of the settlement to promoted Assistants and ignored the documentary and oral evidence submitted. The Union claims that directly recruited Assistants were seniors based on the date of entry and should not be paid less than promoted juniors. The Promoted Assistants, without acquiring additional qualifications or experience, were granted higher pay than directly recruited Assistants who possess professional qualifications. The petitioner submits that Regulation No 3 of the settlement dated 29.5.1991 mandates rectification of such anomalies by stepping up the pay of seniors. The management’s actions contradicted staff regulations and the principle of pay parity. Arbitrary refixations for promoted Assistants were unjustified and violated the principle of “equal pay