B.H.E.L. AND ANR. versus B.K. VIJAY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1066 · Decided: 02-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B.H.E.L. AND ANR. 
v. 
B.K. VIJA Y AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
Factories Act, 1948-Sections 408 and 92·-U.P. Factories (Safety 
C Officers) Rule, 19114--Rule 5-Respondent appointed as Safety Officer in a 
factory-Though placed in non-executive cadre, he was given enhanced 
status of a Senior Executive in terms of Rule 5--Entitlement to corresponding 
enhanced pay allowances and other benefits·--Held: Not entitled--Only 
because Respondent was given a particular status, the same would not mean 
D that his other terms and conditions of service would not be governed by 
contract of employment or other slatute(s) operating in the field--Cadre of 
Senior Executive was for purpose of the promotion rules-Before promotion 
as Senior Executive, there was requirement of holding a post in the executive 
cadre having salary payable to E-1 to E-5 grade-Promotion was not 
automatic. 
E 
Words and Phrases-Expression "status "·-Meaning of 
Respondent was appointed as Safety Officer in the Jhansi unit of 
Appellant, a factory within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948. Though placed 
in the non-executive cadre SA-II, he was given the enhanced status of a Senior 
F Executive in terms of Rule 5 of the U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules, 
1984. 
Respondent filed a writ petition praying that he be treated as a Senior 
Executive placed in E-6 grade and be paid the difference of pay and other 
G allowances together with increment and other benefits including promotional 
benefits as had become due to him from time to time. High Court granted the 
prayer. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for consideration is 
whether as the Respondent was given the status of a Senior Executive in E-6 
1066 
,.._
B.H.E.L. v. B.K. VI.IA Y 
1067 
cadre, he was entitled to corresponding pay allowances and other benefits. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. A Safety Officer is appointed for the purpose of Factories Act, 
1948 only, and in terms of Rule 5 of the U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules, 
1984 he is merely given the status of a departmental he~d or a Sr. Executive B 
in the factory. Such status is conferred because he would be posted under the 
Chief Executive of the factory and would report only to him. As regards safety 
aspects, other officers would be bound by his direction. (1074-B] 
2.1. Only because a person is given a particular status, the same would 
not mean that his other terms and conditions of service would not be governed C 
by contract of employment or other statute(s) operating in the field. The High 
Court unfortunately did not consider the matter from the aforementioned 
perspective, and wrongly proceeded on the basis that only because the 
Respondent is to be given the status of a Sr. Executive, he was entitled to 
corresponding pay, allowances and other benefits. (1075-B, D, F) 
D 
2.2. It is one thing to say that under the Act, a status is conferred for 
the purpose thereof but it would be another thing to say that pay, allowances 
and other benefits are not to be paid in terms of the contract of employment 
or the statute operating in the field. The promotion rules relied upon by the 
Respondent as well as by the High Court clearly show that the cadre of Sr. E 
Executive was for the purpose of the promotion rules. (1075-G, H] 
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Shramik Sena and 
Ors., (1999( 6 SCC 439, relied on. 
P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, Volume 4, page F 
4469 and Black's Law Dictionary, referred to. 
3.1. Before a person in terms of the promotion rules is promoted to the 
post of Sr. Executive, he must hold a post in the executive cadre having salary 
payable to E-1 to E-5 grade. The chart of'standard executive designations' in 
the company shows that before a person is placed in the next higher grade he G 
has to be in the next below post for the number of years mentioned therein. 
(1075-H; 1076-A( 
3.2. Furthermore, promotion to the selection posts is not automatic. 
Nobody has a right to promotion, particular to the selection posts. In ordinary 
course the Respondent was required to spend 43 years of time for reaching H 
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] I S.C.R. 
A E-6 grade. He being in the grade of SA II in the year 1985, could not have 
been granted the salary payable to the officer of the rank of Dy. General 
Manager. Everybody concerned including the officers of the St

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.