LexN.P. VERMA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A N.P. VERMA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. JANUARY 31, 1989 B [MURARI MOHON DUIT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] ~ Labour and Services: Employees of ESSO, Lube India and Caltex Oil Refining Co.-Amalgamation with HPCL-Fitment in·equi- ~J valent groups-Equation of different posts to be in accordance with functional equivalence and co-equal responsibility. \ Cl ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and Lube India Ltd. were acquired by the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) .,,. Act, 1974 and vested in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In 1978 Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd., another Government company was amalgamated with HPCL. Consequent upon this integration of manage- D ment staff of CORIL and HPCL, dispute arose as to their fitment in equivalent gronps and fixation of inter se seniority. The Tandon Committee appointed to examine the issues recommended the applica- tioit of the principles of ( 1) functional similarity, and (2) co-equal . responsibility, for equating positions in the two companies. The HPCL ~ appointed two functional directors for framing a rationalisation scheme. E In the said scheme for the purpose of equation of 10 grades of CORIL with 8 grades of HPCL some compression was made in the lower grades, namely, R6-A and R6-B of CORIL were clubbed together and - equated with grade A of HPCL. Again, grade R7-A and R7-B were clubbed together and equated with grade B of HPCL. I F The complaint of the petitioners, former officers and employees of i CORIL, was that the rationalisation scheme was arbitrary, in that the fitment of officers of CORIL and those of the ESSO/LIL in the HPCL scales of pay had been made without the equation of posts, which was a sine qua non for integration· of officers coming from different sources, so much so that they had been consistantly fitted in one or two grades G lower in HPCL vis-a-vis their counterparts in ESSO/LIL performing similar duties and having similar responsibilities and status; that in the *'- Tandon Committee report, the post of General Sales Representative of ESSO had been equated with the post of Retail Development Supervisor of CO RIL on the principle of functional similarity and co-equal responsibility; that since these two posts were congruent, they should H have been fitted in the same group, that is, in Group B of the new HPCL 362 .. N.P. VERMA v. U.0.1. 363 Grade structure, whereas in the said scheme the post of General Sales Representative of ESSO (E-6) and that of Depot Superintendent (E-6) .; have be~n placed i_n tb.e Salary Group B of HPCL, while the post of Retail Development Supervisor (R6-A) and Depot Superintendent/ Relief Depot Superintendent (R6-B) of CORIL have been placed in ~ Salary ·Group A of HPCL. It is further averred that the post of Depot Superintendent-A (R7-R) and that of Marketing Representative (R7-A) of CORIL have been placed in the Salary Group B of HPCL, but similar posts of ESSO being E-5/ESA have been placed in Salary Group C of HPCL; that the compression should have been made at the higher grades namely, grades R-11and12 and the grade of General Manager, and that the petitioners were forced to signify their consent to the said scheme under duress. They, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the said scheme was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A B c For the respondents, it was contended that the two committees that were appointed by the Chairman of HPCL considered the different me_thods of fitment and equivalence of different pay-scales of ESSO, D LIL and CORIL with the pay-scales of IOC, that the reports submitted by these two committees were considered by the HPCL along with the .submissions made by the officers' association through their representa· ti«i!ts bef~re approval, that the terms and conditions of the new appoint· ments as per the rationalisation scheme were circulated to each of the CORIL employees with its letter dated July 7, 1980 and they having E accepted in writing the said scheme they were precluded from challeng- ing the same . -'f-. Allowing the writ petitions, .1 HELD: 1. While it is not within the domain of the Court to make F the· equation of posts for the purpose of integration, it is surely the concern of the Court to see that before the integration is made and consequent fitment of officers in different grades/scales of pay is effected, there must be an equation of d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.