Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by 52 employees of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Defence. They were appointed as Engineering Assistant Trainees on 13.03.2006 after a selection process initiated by a notification dated 05.10.2005. They were placed on training for one year and subsequently graded as Engineering Assistants in Wage Group-VII with a pay scale of Rs.4620-135-5970-140-8350 effective from 09.04.2007 and 09.05.2007. The Union of India directed all PSUs to implement pay revision based on the Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee report with effect from 01.01.2007. BEL issued office orders on 06.07.2007 granting additional increments to non-executives on rolls as on 01.01.2007, and on 21.05.2010 revising pay scales to Rs.10,050-3%-25,450 plus allowances from 06.04.2007. In 2010, a wage settlement between the management and employees’ union resulted in reduction of the petitioners’ pay from Rs.15,536/- to Rs.14,841/-, allegedly causing employees with lesser qualifications to receive higher pay. The petitioners contended that their training period should be treated as on duty for pay scale and that the revised pay implementation discriminated against them. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala & Others vs. N.V.George. They had earlier approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), who passed orders dated 07.12.2012 and 28.02.2013 against them. Hence, they filed the writ petition seeking mandamus to direct BEL to pay wages and financial benefits including additional increments and fitment benefit maintaining the basic pay as per the initial notification, a declaration that their date of appointment is 03.04.2006 and training period be counted as duty, and certiorari to quash the Assistant Labour Commissioner’s orders. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing before a single judge. The court heard the parties but the text of the order is incomplete, ending abruptly, and no final decision is recorded.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners were entitled to pay revision and other financial benefits maintaining basic pay from the date of appointment, treating training period as on duty, and whether the orders dated 07.12.2012 and 28.02.2013 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner were liable to be quashed.
