FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus SARATCHANDRA RATH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
SARATCHANDRA RATH AND ORS. 
t 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
'( 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : S.181-0ffice memorandum dated 
18.4.91 for revision of pay scales and fiinge benefits for officers in FCI-Para 
5.1 a11d 5.3-Woikers and officers belo11g to two differe11t a11d distinct clas-
c ses-Therefore different p1inciples can be followed i11 fu:ing the salalies in case 
of workme11 a11d revising salmies i11 case of officers--U11equals ca1111ot be 
treated as equals. 
Respondents 1 to 23 were employed as workmen by the appellant 
D 
corporation. On 20th .January 1982 a seven years stagnation scheme was 
introduced by virtue of which the employees in highest workmen's pay scale 
were promoted to lowest officer's scale and they were designated as Assis-
.taut foreman, Junior officer and they were treated as officers and received 
all the facilities admissible to officers. 
E 
On 30th Oct., 1983 a draft of settlement was finalised between the 
management and the workmen and on that basis, a settlement u/s. 18 of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was entered into for revision of various 
pay scales w.e.f. 1st January 1983 to 31 December, 1986. The highest scale 
of workmen was 915-1520 and the next wage agreement was to be effective 
F 
from 1st January, 1987. 
As per this settlement workmen in the highest scale were only to be 
placed (not promoted) from existing scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest 
officer's scale of Rs. 960-1610 and were given the designation of Junior 
Foreman. Though they were entitled to D.A admissible to officers, all other 
G allowances, benefits, union membership etc. remained unaltered. 
(
Thus, the two categories of employees as on 31 Dec. 1986 were: 
(1) Employees who had already undergone placement from highest 
workers scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest officers scale of Rs. 960-1610 
H as they had fultilled the conditions under seven years stagnation scheme 
90 
F.C.l. LID. v. SARATCHANDRARATH 
91 
on or before 31st December 1986. 
(2) Employees in workmen category in the pay scale of Rs. 915 • 1520 
who had not fullilled the eligibility conditions under the stagnation 
scheme. 
A 
Respondents 1 to 23 fulfilled the eligibility conditions under the B 
seven years stagnation scheme on 1st September, 1987 and they were 
placed in the officers pay scale of Rs. 960 • 1610 w.e.f. 1st September 1987 
by virtue of officer memorandum dated 7th Nov. 1987. 
Appellants and respondents entered into a settlement on 1st July 
1987 which was approved by Govt. of India on 23rd March, 1990. By this C 
settlement the pay of workmen who were placed in officers category after 
1.1.87 was revised from Rs. 915 · 1520 to Rs. 1580-2842 from 1.1.87 to 
31.12.91. However they were to draw the same pay as they had been drawing 
after they were placed in officers pay scale that is Rs. 960-1610. The 
workmen who were in officers grade before 1.1.87 were to continue in their D 
current officers scale. 
On 18.4.91 the central officer of FCI issued memorandum revising 
pay scales and fringe benefits for officers in F.C.I. and officers scale of Rs. 
960 • 1610 was revised to 2200 ·3600 exclusive of fitment amount of Rs. 400. 
The new scales were effective from 1.1.87 for a period of 5 years. 
The officers as on 1.1.87 (including Junior Foreman (W) (S) were to 
be fitted into the corresponding revised pay scales as per formula given in 
para 5.1. which included a fitment amount also. 
Certain Ad-hoc advances were drawn by junior Foreman from time 
to time. These were required to be adjusted against future benefits on 
revision of pay scales, etc. However after the pay scales of the respondents 
were fitted into the revised pay scales of officers they started drawing lower 
emoluments prior to officers pay scale revisi9n. 
On 31 October, 1991 a differential amount was made payable as 
personal pay to be adjusted against future increments etc. 
E 
F 
G 
The demand of the respondents that personal pay should not be 
adjusted and recovered against the future increments due but may be 
adjusted only from the benefit which may become due on promotion or H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A revision of pay scales was not acceded to by the appellant. Therefore the 
respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court. However, no 
prayer for quashing the fitment formula as contained in para 5.3 of Office 
Memorandum dated 18 April
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.