Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes from wage settlements and collective bargaining on pay up-gradation dates; such matters fall under Industrial Disputes Act forums.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act seeking appropriate relief(s):-

“(a) Direct the respondents to make their order vide letter no.MTNL/CO/Pers- II/21(82)/JNC /Vol.IV/09 dated 30.12.2015 (i.e. Annexure A-1) effective from 1.4.2009 in lieu of 1.12.2015 in spirit of their own earlier orders bearing по. MTNL/CO/Pers-II/21(82)/JNC/2002/Vol.IV/09 dated 26.5.2009 and order bearingno.MTNL/CO/IRW/21(90)/07/NE/206 dated 14.5.2010 and the Wage Agreement dated 11.5.2010.

(b) Direct the respondent to amend the date of effect of the impugned order i.e. order dated 30.12.2015 to 1.4.2009 with all consequential benefits.

(c) Pass any other order/orders which deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the respondents introduced the NE-12 pay scale as a time-bound financial up-gradation from the NE-11 pay scale for non-executive employees with the object of removing stagnation and granting financial relief to those employees who had completed the prescribed residency period in the NE-11 pay scale. However, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally changed the date of effect of implementation of promotion from the NE-11 pay scale to the NE-12 pay scale with effect from 01.12.2015 instead of 01.04.2009, thereby depriving the applicants of their legitimate promotion and financial benefits without any valid or reasonable justification.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants further states that the action of the respondents in changing the date of effect of implementation of promotion from the NE-11 pay scale to the NE-12 pay scale with effect from 01.12.2015 instead of 01.04.2009 has deprived the applicants of promotion in the NE-12 pay scale, particularly when the reasons for choosing the date of 01.12.2015 are not clear.

3.1. It is further submitted that the respondents, in their order dated 26.05.2009, while extending the promotion from the NE-11 pay scale to the NE-12 pay scale, had never mentioned that the employees in the NE-11 pay scale had to be stagnated in that pay scale. The condition of stagnation subsequently introduced is mala fide, arbitrary, and deserves to be declared void ab initio.

3.2. It is submitted that the respondents only mentioned that the employees have to complete the three-year residency period in the NE-11 pay scale for their promotion to the NE-12 pay scale vide their letter dated 16.03.2011. Information from the Delhi and Mumbai units of MTNL was sought accordingly, and nowhere in the said letter did the respondents ask whether the employees were stagnating in the NE-11 pay scale as on 01.04.2009.

3.3. Learned counsel submits that through subsequent letters dated 24.07.2013, 15.04.2014 and thereafter, the respondents only sought information regarding the number of employees in the NE-11 pay scale who had completed three years of service as on 31.03.2013, 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2015. At no point were the units asked whether the said employees were stagnating in the NE-11 pay scale on the crucial dates.

3.4. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts clearly show that even the respondents had the intention of removing the stagnation clause while making promotions from the NE-11 pay scale to the NE-12 pay scale and the respondents implemented their intention through the order dated 30.12.2015. However, for reasons which are not clear, the respondents made the order effective from 01.12.2015 instead of 01.04.2009, which date had