Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-

The present writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an award dated 26.12.2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol, in reference case no. 61 of 2022 and the order of reference dated 22.12.2022. Vide the impugned award the learned Tribunal held as follows:-

The petitioner has filed short notes and the matter is heard in presence of both the parties.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was serving as a Timber Mistry which is an uncadred post and upon his application and being found to have the required eligibility/qualification was selected for the post of Mining Sirdar, which is an entry level post, subject to his successful training for 6 months during which period he was to get the difference in wages between the post of Mining as would be evident from the letter dated 05/11/2015 and the Office Order dated 26/11/2015 and accordingly, the respondent No. 5 had undergone 6 months' training during which period he was paid the difference in wages and he completed his training on 25/05/2016. Upon completion of training, the respondent No. 5 was regularised in the post of Mining Sirdar with effect from 26/05/2016 as would be evident from the Office Order dated 04/10/2016.

Respondent No. 5 continued to work till 2018 without any protest or demur when he for the first time raised an industrial dispute claiming that his pay fixation was not made correctly, whereafter an order of reference was made on 22/12/2022 and the impugned Award was passed on 26/12/2024, inter alia, holding that the respondent No. 5 is entitled to 3% increment upon his regularisation in the post of Mining Sirdar with effect from 01/07/2016.

The petitioner further states that the impugned award is erroneous and not in accordance with law and also not as per NCWA IX. It is further stated that Reliance has been placed by the CGIT on Clause 2.10.0 of NCWA IX as appears from paragraph 10 of the Award to direct the petitioner to pay 3% increment w.e.f. 01/07/2016. However, Respondent No. 5 was regularised w.e.f. 26/05/2016 and Clause 2.10.0 of NCWA IX speaks of annual increment as would be evident from Clause 2.9.0. No promotional increment is allowed for a post filled up by selection. The post of Mining Sirdar is filled up by selection.

The post of Mining Sirdar is an entry level or feeder post as would be evident from the Cadre Scheme and thus regularisation of the respondent No. 5 in the post of Mining Sirdar cannot be construed as a promotion as the respondent No.5 never served such post for a period of one year as on 01/07/2016 and as such no promotional increment could have been provided w.e.f. 01/07/2016.

It is the basic wage structure of the new post, not being a promotional post, in which an employee has joined, is to be followed.

The case of the respondent No. 5 was that he was getting a lower basic pay while joining the post of Mining Sirdar than that of the post of Timber Mistry, which is an uncadred post. However, the chart at Page 44 of the writ petition and the table in Paragraph 16 prepared on the basis of the said chart would demonstrate that the basic pay of the respondent No. 5 in the post of Mining Sirdar has always been more than the basic pay in the post of Timber Mistry. The respondent No. 5 in his written statement has given incorrect figure of the basic pay which has created the confusion. Instead of basic pay, he mentioned the gross total pay. The basic pay of the respondent No. 5 has been shown in the Chart on daily rated basis till September, 2016, as the office order for regularisation was issued on 04/10/2016 with retrospective effect from 26/05/2016. The observation made in paragraph 10 of the Award as to fitment of time rated employee to monthly rated employee is erroneous as this is not a case of same cadre. A Mining Sirdar is always a monthly rated employee unlike the uncadred post of Timber Mistry.

It appears from Clause 2.10.0 of NCWA IX, that rate of increment shall be fixed at 3% per annum at basis wages of each category/Grade on progressive basis. On perusal of the chart as provided by the petitioner it appears that during the interim period when the respondent/workman was undergoing training as Mining Sirdar, while still holding the post of Timber Mistry, was being paid a different pay and on being regularized as a Mining Sirdar at a promotional post, the workman was being duly paid the scale at a higher rate other than that of a Timber Mistry.

It is further submitted and appears that arrear for the month of June, 2017 to September 2017 was duly paid to the worker. As such there is no case as made out by the respondent workman that he was getting a lessor basic wage as Mining Sirdar than that of Timber Mistry.

The learned tribunal considering that all these facts granted 3% increment to be added to the basic at the time of being promoted to the higher post. It appears that the tribunal wanted to ensure that the basic of the workman is not lessor as Mining Sirdar than that of Timber Mistry. It appears that the total matter was not placed properly before the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and as such the tribunal proceeded to grant 3% increment to increase the basic to make it higher than the basic of Timber Mistry.

Considering the fact that there is no such case as made out by the employee and the service rules which provide annual increment after completion of one year on progressive basic, an increment as granted cannot be added at the time of entry at a promotional post.

Accordingly the impugned award under challenge dated 26.12.2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol in reference case no. 61 of 2022, being not in accordance with law and hereby set aside.

Writ application is allowed.

Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.