THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.7916 OF200327-01-2014 Tirupati Transport Workers Union (APSRTC).Tirupati and others....PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport, Road and Buildings Department and others....RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sr.G.
Vidya Sagar Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP for Transprt (R&B) Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Revenue (Endowments) Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sr.K.V.Subba Reddy, SC for APSRTC) Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sr.P.
Harinath Gupta HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.7916 of 2003 ORDER
: This old Writ Petition is instituted by Tirupati Transport Workers Union (APSRTC) (Ex.
T.T.D.).a registered Trade Union acting through its General Secretary.
Petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are individuals.
It is stated that they are all working as conductORS.who were originally appointed in the Transport Wing of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (henceforth referred to as 'the Devasthanam') and subsequently, transferred to become the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as 'the Corporation').The petitioners sought for a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the revised pay scales of 1986, as announced by the 1st respondent State Government, and not applying the appropriate pay scale to them, as illegal and consequently, a direction is sought for to the respondents to extend the benefit of the revised pay scales of 1986 and all other subsequent revisions of pay scales to the members of the 1st petitioner Trade Union, including petitioners 2 to 6, in accordance with and in terms of Clause-13 of the agreement that was entered into on 08-08- 1975.
Heard Sr.G.
Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sr.K.V.Subba Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, Sr.Harinath Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent Devasthanam and learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning, who advanced arguments on behalf of the 1st respondent.
It is the case of the petitioners that the Devasthanam was providing the transport facilities for the pilgrim public that used to arrive at Tirupati from various parts of the State and the neighboring States and all those thousands of pilgrims were provided the appropriate transport facilities for the uphill journey to Tirumala.
For operating these services, a fleet of buses were owned by the Devasthanam and consequently, several persons have been recruited by the Devasthanam to work as driveRs.conductORS.mechanics, supervisORS.etcetera, but however, a rationalization of the facilities is attempted at and consequently, a policy decision has been taken to transfer the entire Transport Wing of the Devasthanam in favour of the Corporation, which is the creature of the Road Transport Corporation Act, and is also a State-owned Organization, so that the professional efficiency of the services can be reasonably secured.
For the purpose of achieving this objective, an agreement has been entered into between the Corporation on the one hand and the Devasthanam on the other, on 08- 08-1975.
This agreement was entered into, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the Devasthanam on 08-08-1975, to transfer the Transport Wing of the Devasthanam, and simultaneously, the resolution passed on 08-08-1975 to take over the said Transport Wing, in view of the powers conferred on the Corporation, in terms of Section 19(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act.
As a consequence of this agreement, the terms and conditions, subject to which it is to be operated, have been reduced to writing.
Thus, the agreement dated 08-08-1975 sets out that all the buses of the Devasthanam, which are found to be in working condition, together with all the machinery and equipment, were agreed to be taken over by the Corporation on the book value, namely, the initial cost of their purchase minus depreciation @ 30% every year.
The Devasthanam has also agreed to let out its buildings and land, on lease basis, situate both at Tirupati and Tirumala, for enabling the Corporation to operate the transport services.
Other conditions, which are also relevant for giving thrust to the agreement, have also been spelt out therein, but however, we are not so much concerned with any one of them in the present case.
The Devasthanam has only agreed to retain in its services all the ministerial staff working in the various units of their transport wing, while the Corporation, in Clause-13 of the agreement, has agreed to absorb the remaining workmen working in the Transport Wing of the Devasthanam without any interruption in their services and also assured them as to their pay, allowances, provident fund contribution and gratuity upon their transfer to the services of the Corporation.
The terminal benefits that are liable to be provided to the absorbed staff of the Devasthanam in the Corporation have been spelt out in para 14.
In para 16, it was agreed by both parties to refer any disputes that might arise in the process of implementation of this agreement to the decision of the State Government, which was agreed to be final and binding on both the parties.
As a consequence of the above agreement, dated 08-08-1975, with effect from 10- 08-1975, the entire transportation services stood vested in the Corporation and the Devasthanam was completely divested of such services.
Petitioners 2 to 6 herein are some of those workmen, who stood absorbed in the service of the Corporation, pursuant to the conditions set out and stipulated in Clause-13 of the above agreement.
It was also brought out by the petitioners that the Union has been demanding for creation of grades, revised scales of pay, dearness allowance, interim relief, retiremental benefits, etcetera and most significantly, the Union was agitating for implementation of the revised pay scales to the employees, who stood transferred from the Devasthanam.
In those set of circumstances, to secure industrial peace, a Memorandum of Settlement (for short 'MoS') has been arrived at, in terms and in accordance with sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Representatives of Tirupati Transport Workers Union and the Corporation on 04- 08-1979.
It was spelt out in the preamble of this MoS that the Corporation has agreed and is willing to protect the conditions of service of all the transferred workmen of the Devasthanam, numbering about 850.
In para 1 of the MoS, it is specified that the Corporation has agreed to revise the pay scales, including the dearness allowance, house rent allowance to the employees, who stood absorbed from the Devasthanam's service, and assign them the corresponding revised scales of pay for the similar scales given by the Government from time to time as and when the State Government revises its pay scales.
It was agreed that any revision of these pay scales for the Corporation employees shall be applicable to the transferred Transport Wing employees of the Devasthanam.
It is also agreed that any revision of pay scales for the Devasthanam employees ".shall not".
be made applicable to the transferred Devasthanam employees.
It was further agreed that wherever corresponding scales of pay are not covered by the Government in its pay-revision, the revised pay scales in such cases will be decided based on an agreement between the management and the trade union.
It was specifically agreed that the benefit of revision of pay scales will be applicable from the same date on which the State Government applies them to its servants.
By virtue of this settlement entered under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it has now been crystallized that the pay scales, as and when revised and applied by the Devasthanam to its employees, will not be applicable to the former employees of its Transport Wing, who stood transferred to the Corporation in terms of and in accordance with the agreement dated 08-08- 1975.
To such transferred employees, the revision of pay scales applied by the Corporation to all its other staff members would be extended.
Now, the question that is engaging the attention in the instant case is that the State Government had announced revised pay scales to its servants through the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.288, Finance & Planning (FIN.WING PRC.I) Department, dated 17-11-1986.
In para 3 thereof, it is set out that the revised pay scales shall be as set out in Schedule-I to the Notification appended to the said order against each of the corresponding existing pay scales.
These scales shall be common to all the employees in various categories except where specified otherwise in the departmental pay schedules (Schedule-II) appended to the Notification.
This Notification has further proceeded and made it clear that the holders of posts not included in Schedule-II will be governed by the revised pay scales corresponding to the present scales as shown in Schedule-I.
It therefore, emerges that if Schedule-II to the Notification issued through G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11-1986 has dealt with the posts of conductORS.it is those scales of pay, which would get attracted automatically and they will have to be applied and given effect to.
But however, if no post of conductor or any other category of posts forming part of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam and later on absorbed in the Corporation is to be found in Schedule- II, the corresponding scales of pay specified in Schedule-I to the Notification appended to G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11-1986, alone will be attracted.
The case of the Corporation is that posts of conductors and for that matter, no other category of posts, which were forming part of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam, were ever found mentioned in Schedule-II to the Notification appended to G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11-1986.
As a consequence, only the corresponding scales of pay found mentioned in Schedule-I to the said Notification would become applicable.
Hence, Sr.K.V.Subba Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would contend that conductors were earlier drawing their pay in the scale of pay of Rs.425-10-455-15-650 and the corresponding revised scale of pay assigned and found in Schedule-I reads as Rs.810-25-1060-30-1420.
Therefore, Sr.K.V.Subba Reddy would contend that the Corporation has rightly assigned the conductors of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam, who stood absorbed in the Corporation pursuant to the agreement dated 08-08-1975, the revised scales of pay of Rs.810-25-1060-30- 1420, and accordingly, they were paid.
It is also contended by Sr.K.V.Subba Reddy, that all other similar categories of employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam were paid their revised pay scales going by the scales specified in Schedule-I of the Notification appended to G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17- 11-1986 and hence, he contends that the Corporation is not at fault and it cannot be compelled to assign any other better scale of pay to the conductors and any other categories of employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam upon their absorption in the Corporation.
Whereas Sr.G.
Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the scale of pay of Rs.425-10-455-15-650 is exactly the same as is assigned to a Lower Division Clerk working in the Devasthanam.
The Devasthanam was paying the conductors the same scale of pay treating them at par with the Lower Division Clerks, who were rendering such ministerial services in the Transport Wing.
Therefore, if the ministerial employees of the Devasthanam are assigned revised scale of pay of Rs.910-30-1240-35-1625, it is this scale of pay, which shall stand extended to the petitioners and other similar categories of employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam.
Sr.Vidyasagar would contend that the conditions of service of the employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam have been agreed to be protected by the Corporation subsequent to their absorption.
Therefore, it is no longer open to the Corporation to change its stand and refuse to protect the conditions of service of the employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam.
What should be the status of a particular post that is liable to be assigned by its employer, is a matter of policy choice left in the domain of policy realm.
Depending upon the nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by an employee, the status of the employees is normally recognized.
Some times, a host of posts in an organization are broadly classified as belonging to the same class and carry the same status.
But, there is no specific formula for the same to be applied as a kind of uniform yardstick for all employees and to all employments.
Classification of employment is, therefore, depending upon the employer.
To maintain good and decent relationship with its employees and for the purpose of securing appropriate cordial relationship at the work place, the status of the employees will be upgraded after undertaking an appropriate review.
It is not an uncommon feature that the statuses of several classes of posts get upgraded revision over a period of time.
As and when the employer realizes that the nature and responsibilities entrusted to a particular class of employees deserve an appropriate classification of such services, a decision in that regard would be taken.
To my mind, the post of a conductor, which requires certain degree of technical qualification and knowledge and aptitude, is not capable of being compared in any manner to the nature of work or responsibility entrusted to and performed by a Lower Division Clerk on the ministerial side of the same employment.
They are two different functions altogether.
Even if, at one point of time, they were all broadly brought under the same umbrella or class of services, there cannot be any mathematically precise formula to ensure that they moved hand in hand for all times together in their service journey.
I am therefore, not in a position to subscribe to the view that, since the Devasthanam has treated the conductors of its Transport Wing to occupy the same status of a Lower Division Clerk on the ministerial establishment side of it, the same status should prevail at all times to come and more particularly, even after their absorption in the Corporation after the entire Transport Wing of the Devasthanam has been made over to the Corporation.
It may be possible to assume that if the Transport Wing had continued under the control of the Devasthanam, perhaps, the benevolent management of the Devasthanam might have accorded such a benefit to its conductors and it might have maintained parity in that regard all through.
But however, the obligation to maintain such parity cannot tantamount a condition of service and consequently, the Corporation cannot be faulted to have failed to protect such imaginary conditions of service insofar as the absorbed employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam is concerned.
I am therefore, not in a position to subscribe to the view point that the action of the respondents, particularly, the State Government and the Corporation, would amount to breach of the terms and conditions and stipulations of the agreement, dated 08-08-1975 entered into by and between the Corporation and the Devasthanam.
As was rightly pointed out by Sr.K.V.Subba Reddy, the revised scales of pay notified in Schedule-II to the Notification issued through G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11-1986, would have surely become available if only the posts of conductors and other similar categories of posts found mentioned in the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam are also found mentioned in Schedule-II.
It is agreed on all hands that there is no such mention in Schedule-II of the Notification appended to G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11-1986.
Hence, going by the default option specified, it is the corresponding revised pay scale found mentioned in Schedule-I of the Notification appended to G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11- 1986 that gets attracted.
There is no denying of the fact that the scale of pay of Rs.425-10-455-15-650 was assigned the corresponding revised scale of pay of Rs.810-25-1060-30-1420 in Schedule-I of the revised pay scales announced through G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17-11-1986.
There is no denying of the fact that the same revised pay scale has been made applicable by the Corporation.
Sr.Harinath Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam has rightly pointed out that the Devasthanam made its position very clear to the Corporation.
The Devasthanam has, undoubtedly, treated the conductors at par with the Lower Division Clerks of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam.
The erstwhile employees of the Transport Wing remained in service of the Devasthanam and, therefore, they were assigned the correspondingly higher scales of pay.
It is for the Corporation and for the State Government to take an appropriate decision as to whether the conductors of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam should get an identical revised pay scale or not.
Insofar as the Devasthanam is concerned, it can only make available the history of the treatment meted out to its erstwhile employees, but, under no circumstances, no further benefits, much less any financial benefits can be thrust upon the Devasthanam.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not in a position to subscribe to the view point canvassed by Sr.Vidyasagar that the petitioners and other similarly placed erstwhile employees of the Transport Wing of the Devasthanam should be extended the corresponding revised scales of pay, keeping in mind the ministerial employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam.
On the other hand, the Settlement arrived at in accordance with Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in so many words, made it explicitly clear that the revised scales of pay, as are rendered applicable to the employees of the Devasthanam, shall not be applied henceforth to the absorbed employees of the erstwhile Transport Wing of the Devasthanam.
I therefore, do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J2701-2014