LexEASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. versus PRATIVA BISWAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 85 EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. v. PRATIVA BISWAS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8606 of2009) OCTOBER 11, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Service Law - Absorption - Respondents-employees absorbed in Appellant-limited company- Issue relating to fitment on absorption -In a previous writ petition, High Court vide order dated 26.08.2002 had held that when employees were enjoying the Central Government scale of pay and when they were converted and fitted in the appellant-limited company pay scale, their pay, in any event, could not be reduced, inasmuch as, pay protection was assured to them by the appellant - However, when fitment was done, the basic salary was reduced and fixed on a lower side - Respondent filed fresh writ petition which was dismissed by Single Judge - Order set aside by Division Bench - Plea of appellant-limited company before Supreme Court that they had assured protection for the total emolument and fixation of pay has been done in the manner that the total emoluments which had been drawn were more than the one drawn by the employees earlier - Held: It was not the total emoluments that mattered - On perusal of the option form filled by the employees before absorption, it is clear that both basic salary and emolument drawn by them earlier were to be protected - Salary protection was to be ensured, it could not have been reduced apart from emoluments - There was dual protection; that was urifortunately ignored and overlooked by the Appellant-limited company - When the pay scales were converted to and paid in appellant-limited company, respondents' pay drawn could not have been reduced, inasmuch as pay protection had been assured to them and in view of order dated 26.08.2002 that attained finality and pay fixation was to be made in the manner that total emoluments drawn were not less - Further, the order dated 26.08.2002 was to be complied with in pith and substance, rather the fitment made was clearly in violation of the order as well as the provisions of option form and even subject to conditions on which the absorption had been made 85 A B c D E F G H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R. A - Therefore. benefits be extended to all the employees who were absorbed. whether continuing or have been retired and to the legal representatives of deceased employees - Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of pith and substance. B c D E F G H Dismissiltg the appeal, the Court HELD: l. When the pay scales were converted to and paid in the Coal India Limited, respondents' pay drawn could not have been reduced, inasmuch as pay protection had been assured to them and in view of aforesaid order that attained finality and pay fixation was to be made in the manner that total emoluments drawn were not less. After fitment, if it was found that lesser amount was to be received as salary on or after 1.1.1987, it was required that the shortfall was made good by way of personal adjustment(s). Accordingly, protection was to be made on the fitment by grant of personal pay meaning thereby the pay could not have been reduced on th4 fitment in the ECL pay scales. The order 26.8 2002 was to be complied with in pith and substance; rather it was violated by the aforesaid method of fixation. [Para 15] [95-F-G] 2. The fitment made was clearly in violation of the order as well as the provisions of option form and even subject to conditions on which the absorption had been made. Thus, the Division Bench has rightly set aside the order passed by the Single Bench by the order impugned; it was not the total emoluments that matters. Salary protection was to be ensured, it could not have been reduced apart from emoluments. There was dual protection; that was unfortunately ignored and overlooked by the ECL in spite qf the clear and categorical order passed by the Single Bench in the writ application of 1993, which order had attained finality, and had not been questioned by any of the parties.[Para 15] [96-A-C] 3. The reduction of basic pay drawn in the pay scale was wholly arbitrary and violates the order of the Single Bench dated 26.08.2002, thus we find no merits in the appeal and we dismiss the same. Let the benefits be extended forthwith to all the employees who were absorbed, whether continuing today or have EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. v. PRATNA BISWAS 87 & ORS. been retired and to the legal representatives of d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.