Secretary, New Mangalore Port and Dock Workers' Union Vs. Central Industrial Tribunal and Anr. (27.11.1996 - KARHC) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) industrial disputes act, 1947 (central act no. 14 of 1947) - schedule 3 item 1 & 7 -- union agitating pay scales fixed to asst. marine surveyors as not equal to other 3 categories -- tribunal rejecting claim on grounds that pay scales fixed by award committee of port trust consisting of experts & on proper representation from both sides, did not call for interference -- held, on comparison, asst. marine surveyors deserved better payscale & court directed for constituting a new committee therefor.; (b) minimum wages act, 1948 (central act no. 11 of 1948) - section 5(1) & (2) -- fixation of payscales of asst. marine surveyors working in mlore port trust by expert wage committee on region-wise basis different from those working in kandla & tuticorin on bases of work risk involved etc., -- held, payscales do not appear to be equal for equal work & be re-examined by another committee. - indian evidence act,1872[c.a.no.1/1872] section 83: [v.jagannathan, j] encroachment of property - survey - surveyors report - held, it is, clear from a careful reading of the section 83 of indian evidence act, 1872, that if any map or plan is made for the purpose of any cause, the said map or plan will have to be proved to be accurate. the onus of proving such map as accurate lies on the party who wants to rely on the said map or plan. it has to be proved that the said map or plan or survey report, is accurate by examining the person who actually prepared it. it is not in dispute that in the case, the surveyor, who gave the report was not examined. since the survey report is prepared for the purpose of the suit filed by the plaintiff and, in the absence of there being any evidence placed to show that the said survey report was prepared for a public purpose, it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to have proved the report by examining the surveyor in order to show that survey report is accurate report. it is not uncommon to come across instances where apart from playing fraud, there is a tendency to exaggerate, while preparing maps or survey reports and the said infirmity or defect can be overcome only by offering the maker of the survey report come before the court and testify with regard to the accuracy of the report, no such opportunity was available for the appellant to cross-examine the surveyor, as the plaintiff did not examine the surveyor to prove the accuracy of reports. the lower appellate court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on record, the provisions of section 83 of the indian evidence act were not properly considered. the judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained on facts and in law as there is not only misreading of the evidence on record but erroneous application of law. the trial court had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for want of accuracy in the survey report produced by the plaintiff and it also took note of section 83 of the indian evidence act in arriving at this conclusion. - conciliation proceedings failed and a report was sent to the central government and thereafter the central government referred the matter to the industrial tribunal as stated above. 3. the learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset submitted that unless a very clear case is made out and the court is satisfied that the scale provided to a group of persons on the basis of the material produced before it amounts to discrimination without there being any justification, the court should not take upon itself the responsibility of fixing of sales of pay especially when the different scales of pay have been fixed by the pay commissioner or pay revision committee, having persons as members who can be held to be experts in the field and after examining all the relevant materials. in this case as stated earlier, the central government after being satisfied that there is prima facie case referred the matter to the industrial tribunal to consider the dispute raised before it. 6. in the cross-examination it is suggested that the management recommended the scale of rs. however, he did not know as to for what reason the management recommended for a higher scale to the assistant marine surveyors of new mangalore port trust as compared to the assistant marine surveyors of tuticorin.orderm.p. chinnappa, j1. this writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the central industrial tribunal rejecting the reference made by the central government to consider the question which reads:'keeping in view the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the assistant marine surveyors working in new mangalore port , trust, panambur, whether the action of the management of new mangalore port trust, panambur, in fixing a less scale of rs. 750-1251 to the assistant marine surveyor in new managalore port trust is justified. if not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?'after considering the plea and also the evidence let in by the parties, the 1st respondent rejected the reference. hence the petitioner filed this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india.2. the brief facts of the case are that the mangalore port was 'started in 1963. in 1980 it came to be named as new mangalore port trust. subsequently pay commissioner hiked the pay in 1980 and wage revision was effected for 1982-83. till wage revision came into being there were 17 categories of employees working in this port. subsequent to the wage revision the said 17 posts were degasified into 21 categories. as a result of this degasification the assistant marine surveyors became a different category from the superintendents, head draughtsman, stenographers and p.a. to the chief engineer and administrator. before degasifying all these categories, all these 4 categories of employees were drawing a pay scale of rs. 550-1750. pursuant to pay revision, the pay scale of other 3 groups was fixed to 900-1250. whereas assistant marine surveyors pay was fixed at rs. 750-1251. at the higher and these assistant marine surveyors stand to gain. their only grouse is in regard to the starting pay of rs. 750/- as against rs. 900/- fixed for other 3 categories of the employees as stated above. hence an industrial dispute was raised. conciliation proceedings failed and a report was sent to the central government and thereafter the central government referred the matter to the industrial tribunal as stated above.3. the learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset submitted that unless a very clear case is made out and the court is satisfied that the scale provided to a group of persons on the basis of the material produced before it amounts to discrimination without there being any justification, the court should not take upon itself the responsibility of fixing of sales of pay especially when the different scales of pay have been fixed by the pay commissioner or pay revision committee, having persons as members who can be held to be experts in the field and after examining all the relevant materials. in support of this argument he also placed reliance on a decision reported in state of w.b. and ors. v. hari narayan bhowal and others : (1995)iillj328sc . that came up before the hon'ble supreme court as the high court of calcutta allowed the writ petition filed by the west bengal national volunteer force claiming that they are also entitled for equal pay that is being paid to the west bengal police force. the said writ petition came to be allowed and the said order was questioned before the hon'ble supreme court. the question arose before their lordships in regard to equal pay for equal work. under the circumstances, their lordships have held that the claimants must not only establish that the nature of the work is identical but also that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately. mere similarity in the nature of the work in two groups is not sufficient. in this case as stated earlier, the central government after being satisfied that there is prima facie case referred the matter to the industrial tribunal to consider the dispute raised before it. further, it may also be mentioned here that before 1980 or till the report of the pay revision committee was submitted all these 4 posts were brought under one category. it is not known as to how assistant marine supervisors were separated from the group and fixed a lesser pay than the pay fixed for other 3 class of employees under the said category.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the reason assigned by the pay revision committee is unsustainable. it appears that the committee has taken into consideration the number of years of experience required for the promotion to become either the head draughtsman or superintendent or stenographers and pa. to the chief engineer and administrator in their respective category after putting minimum 9 years of service, whereas the assistant marine engineers post does not require such long years of service. on the other hand, the qualification prescribed is diploma in civil engineering with minimum 3 years of experience. however, it appears that the nature of the work to be turned out by the assistant marine surveyors was not taken into consideration.5. from the unchallenged evidence of sarvothamacharya which is produced as annexure-d who is examined as a witness to the i party it is dear that he joined the ii party in april 1967 as a work assistant. since 10.10.80 on being promoted, he was working as the assistant marine surveyor. he was examined on 11.9.87. according to him as an assistant marine surveyor, his duties are to survey in the sea, prepare drawings of the charts and to study salinity, temperature, etc. he has to survey outer approach channel, lagoon, dockarm. he has to survey an area of 10 k.m. in length & 6 k.m. in width. he has to do the work of junior engineer gr. i such as preparing plans, estimates & concrete work, etc. he has also to do dredging work and calculate the quantity of dredging work done. he has to take the attendance of the tindel, senior fitter, fitter & supervise their work. he has to maintain the scientific equipments. in order to become an ams one should have to be a junior marine surveyor with 3 years experience or graduate in civil engineering. from this it is dear that only a graduate in civil engineering can become assistant marine surveyor directly.6. in the cross-examination it is suggested that the management recommended the scale of rs. 750/- to 1114/- to the asst. marine surveyors as applied in kandla port to asst. hydrographic surveyor. it is also suggested that the pay scale of the assistant marine surveyor of kandla port is rs. 600/- to rs. 1035/-. he also admits that on behalf of the assistant marine surveyos of new mangalore port trust they recommenced higher pay scale to assistant marine surveyors as compared to the assistant marine surveyors of tuticorin on the ground that their duties were more onerous. however, he did not know as to for what reason the management recommended for a higher scale to the assistant marine surveyors of new mangalore port trust as compared to the assistant marine surveyors of tuticorin. from this suggestion, it is abundantly dear that the nature of work of assistant marine surveyors on different ports varies from one port to the other. therefore, it is dear that a diploma holder in civil engineering should have put in a minimum 3 years of service as junior marine surveyor. therefore, it is dear that this post requires diploma in civil engineering and also 3 years experience or an engineer graduate. inspite of that, the committee has fixed lesser pay than the officers working in the administrative side. admittedly, this is an executive post and they have to undergo tremendous tension and also risk in conducting the survey in the sea. the evidence of the witness has not been challenged as far as his nature of work is concerned. therefore, it can be inferred that the committee has not taken into consideration all these facts.7. however, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the persons working as assistant marine surveyors in kandla and other places are getting the same pay as fixed for these employees of the mangalore port trust. therefore, he contended that their pay is fixed on the regional formula. that order does not call for interference. but the fact remains that kandla port is not considered to be a big port as that of mangalore port, and it is also not known the nature of work being turned out by the assistant marine surveyors of kandla. be that as it may, the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that promotional avenue is wider for the assistant marine surveyors. as stated earlier the witness was appointed as junior marine surveyor and subsequently he was promoted as assistant marine surveyor in the year 1980. but still he was working only as assistant marine surveyor in the year 1987 when he was examined before the tribunal. that means to say, even for the last 7 years, he had no promotion from that post.8. the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to jai singh jairam tyagi v. maman chand : [1980]3scr224 to the effect that the wage committee report should not be disputed ordinarily by the court. it may be mentioned here that under the minimum wages act, 1948, the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages is provided. it is stated that in fixing minimum wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this act or in revising minimum rates or wages so fixed, the appropriate government shall either appoint as many committees and subcommittees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be. on the basis of it, he submitted that the government has appointed experts who have substantial knowledge in regard to the fixation of wages to the employees and that should not be ordinarily interfered by the court.9. in vasudevan v. state of kerala air 1968 kant 67 the division bench of the kerala high court has held that the fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment by the appropriate government is an administrative act which is final and is not subject to judicial review on the question of the quantum of the wages fixed. if, however, the fixation by the government is ultra vires their powers under the act, it admits of being so declared and corrected by the court under article 226 and/or article 227 of the constitution. similarly, it is held in a decision reported in u.p. cinema exhibitors v. state of up 1977 lab ic 993 that the nature of various picture houses and the paying capacity of the individual employers of those picture houses was not material. in fixing the minimum rates of wages as contemplated by the act the hardship caused to individual employers or their inability to meet the burden has no relevance.10. according to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, wages board when constituted should have been left to regulate their own procedure in such manner as they think fit. it is unnecessary that any regulation should be made in regard to the procedure to be adopted, by them in the conduct of their enquiry. further he submitted that it is not supposed to contain within itself the minutest analytical or arithmetical dissection of all aspects involved. if the report indicates the extensive coverage by the committee and that it had given full scope to both the employer and employee to represent their views and if the report indicates the material date collected was considered while making its recommendation then it is quite an acceptable report and not perfunctory one. the dispute in this case as stated earlier was that the wage committee has not given proper reason as to why this particular category of post has been separated from the other posts which were classified as one category of posts giving the same pay. he also submitted that the procedure contemplated by section 5(1)(b) is not a quasi judicial reason need not be stated in the notification fixing the minimum wages. it is no doubt true that reasons need not be given to fix the minimum wages but reason ought to be given in separate categories of posts and to fix a different pay scale when hitherto all the posts were held to be in one category. in this case as stated earlier, no reason was assigned and a separate pay scale was fixed as far as assistant marine surveyors are concerned.11. the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an expert committee may be constituted to examine all these aspects and to give a finding on that. per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award committee constituted by the trust consisting of experts and they had gone through all the aspects and therefore, there is no need for an expert committee to be constituted. he also submitted that the order passed by the committee and accepted by the industrial tribunal does not call for interference. as stated earlier, though region-wise fixation of scale is preferable, but the committee has not taken into consideration the nature of work, the responsibility and also the risk involved while fixing the scale. as indicated above, there is a different pay scale in respect of different regions for the same type of work. therefore, it is not prohibitory for the committee to fixed a different scale to fix higher scale of pay to the asst. marine surveyors working in mangalore port.12. the learned counsel for the respondent however contended that at this belated stage if this court were to hold that the pay has to be re-fixed, it would amount to opening flood gates and greater anomaly would be caused. but at the same time, it would be calling upon the management to take into consideration the nature of the work and other circumstances as indicated above.13. from a perusal of the order it is dear that on a lower scale the pay is fixed at rs. 720/- and on higher scale it is fixed for more than what is fixed for other 3 groups. that itself indicates that the asst. marine surveyors really deserve the amount at least equivalent to the other 3 groups of employees. however, this court cannot fix the pay scale of this group without other materials on record. under the circumstances, i am of the considered view that an expert committee has to be appointed, to consider the case of the asst. marine surveyors in the light of the observations made above.14. in the result therefore, i proceed to pass the following:

Judgment:
ORDER

M.P. Chinnappa, J

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal rejecting the reference made by the Central Government to consider the question which reads:

'Keeping in view the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Marine Surveyors working in New Mangalore Port , Trust, Panambur, whether the action of the Management of New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur, in fixing a less scale of Rs. 750-1251 to the Assistant Marine Surveyor in New Managalore Port Trust is justified. If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?'

After considering the plea and also the evidence let in by the parties, the 1st respondent rejected the reference. Hence the petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Mangalore Port was 'started in 1963. in 1980 it came to be named as New Mangalore Port Trust. Subsequently Pay Commissioner hiked the pay in 1980 and wage revision was effected for 1982-83. Till wage revision came into being there were 17 categories of employees working in this port. Subsequent to the wage revision the said 17 posts were degasified into 21 categories. As a result of this degasification the Assistant Marine Surveyors became a different category from the Superintendents, Head Draughtsman, Stenographers and P.A. to the Chief Engineer and Administrator. Before degasifying all these categories, all these 4 categories of employees were drawing a pay scale of Rs. 550-1750. Pursuant to pay revision, the pay scale of other 3 groups was fixed to 900-1250. Whereas Assistant Marine Surveyors pay was fixed at Rs. 750-1251. At the higher and these Assistant Marine Surveyors stand to gain. Their only grouse is in regard to the starting pay of Rs. 750/- as against Rs. 900/- fixed for other 3 categories of the employees as stated above. Hence an industrial dispute was raised. Conciliation proceedings failed and a report was sent to the Central Government and thereafter the Central Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal as stated above.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent at the very outset submitted that unless a very clear case is made out and the Court is satisfied that the scale provided to a group of persons on the basis of the material produced before it amounts to discrimination without there being any justification, the Court should not take upon itself the responsibility of fixing of sales of pay especially when the different scales of pay have been fixed by the Pay Commissioner or Pay Revision Committee, having persons as members who can be held to be experts in the field and after examining all the relevant materials. In support of this argument he also placed reliance on a decision reported in STATE OF W.B. AND ORS. v. HARI NARAYAN BHOWAL AND OTHERS : (1995)IILLJ328SC . That came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the High Court of Calcutta allowed the Writ Petition filed by the West Bengal National Volunteer Force claiming that they are also entitled for equal pay that is being paid to the West Bengal Police Force. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed and the said order was questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question arose before Their Lordships in regard to equal pay for equal work. Under the circumstances, Their Lordships have held that the claimants must not only establish that the nature of the work is identical but also that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately. Mere similarity in the nature of the work in two groups is not sufficient. In this case as stated earlier, the Central Government after being satisfied that there is prima facie case referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to consider the dispute raised before it. Further, it may also be mentioned here that before 1980 or till the report of the Pay Revision Committee was submitted all these 4 posts were brought under one category. It is not known as to how Assistant Marine Supervisors were separated from the group and fixed a lesser pay than the pay fixed for other 3 class of employees under the said category.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the reason assigned by the Pay Revision Committee is unsustainable. It appears that the Committee has taken into consideration the number of years of experience required for the promotion to become either the Head Draughtsman or Superintendent or Stenographers and PA. to the Chief Engineer and Administrator in their respective category after putting minimum 9 years of service, whereas the Assistant Marine Engineers Post does not require such long years of service. On the other hand, the qualification prescribed is Diploma in Civil Engineering with minimum 3 years of experience. However, it appears that the nature of the work to be turned out by the Assistant Marine Surveyors was not taken into consideration.

5. From the unchallenged evidence of Sarvothamacharya which is produced as Annexure-D who is examined as a witness to the I Party it is dear that he joined the II Party in April 1967 as a Work Assistant. Since 10.10.80 on being promoted, he was working as the Assistant Marine Surveyor. He was examined on 11.9.87. According to him as an Assistant Marine Surveyor, his duties are to survey in the sea, prepare drawings of the charts and to study salinity, temperature, etc. He has to survey outer approach channel, lagoon, dockarm. He has to survey an area of 10 k.m. in length & 6 k.m. in width. He has to do the work of Junior Engineer Gr. I such as preparing plans, estimates & concrete work, etc. He has also to do dredging work and calculate the quantity of dredging work done. He has to take the attendance of the Tindel, Senior Fitter, Fitter & supervise their work. He has to maintain the scientific equipments. In order to become an AMS one should have to be a Junior Marine Surveyor with 3 years experience or graduate in Civil Engineering. From this it is dear that only a graduate in Civil Engineering can become Assistant Marine Surveyor directly.

6. In the cross-examination it is suggested that the management recommended the scale of Rs. 750/- to 1114/- to the Asst. Marine Surveyors as applied in Kandla Port to Asst. Hydrographic Surveyor. It is also suggested that the pay scale of the Assistant Marine Surveyor of Kandla Port is Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1035/-. He also admits that on behalf of the Assistant Marine Surveyos of New Mangalore Port Trust they recommenced higher pay scale to Assistant Marine Surveyors as compared to the Assistant Marine Surveyors of Tuticorin on the ground that their duties were more onerous. However, he did not know as to for what reason the Management recommended for a higher scale to the Assistant Marine Surveyors of New Mangalore Port Trust as compared to the Assistant Marine Surveyors of Tuticorin. From this suggestion, it is abundantly dear that the nature of work of Assistant Marine Surveyors on different ports varies from one port to the other. Therefore, it is dear that a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering should have put in a minimum 3 years of service as Junior Marine Surveyor. Therefore, it is dear that this post requires Diploma in Civil Engineering and also 3 years experience or an engineer graduate. Inspite of that, the Committee has fixed lesser pay than the officers working in the administrative side. Admittedly, this is an executive post and they have to undergo tremendous tension and also risk in conducting the survey in the sea. The evidence of the witness has not been challenged as far as his nature of work is concerned. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Committee has not taken into consideration all these facts.

7. However, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the persons working as Assistant Marine Surveyors in Kandla and other places are getting the same pay as fixed for these employees of the Mangalore Port Trust. Therefore, he contended that their pay is fixed on the regional formula. That order does not call for interference. But the fact remains that Kandla Port is not considered to be a big port as that of Mangalore Port, and it is also not known the nature of work being turned out by the Assistant Marine Surveyors of Kandla. Be that as it may, the Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that promotional avenue is wider for the Assistant Marine Surveyors. As stated earlier the witness was appointed as Junior Marine Surveyor and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Marine Surveyor in the year 1980. But still he was working only as Assistant Marine Surveyor in the year 1987 when he was examined before the Tribunal. That means to say, even for the last 7 years, he had no promotion from that post.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to JAI SINGH JAIRAM TYAGI v. MAMAN CHAND : [1980]3SCR224 to the effect that the Wage Committee Report should not be disputed ordinarily by the Court. It may be mentioned here that under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages is provided. It is stated that in fixing minimum wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates or wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either appoint as many committees and subcommittees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be. On the basis of it, he submitted that the Government has appointed experts who have substantial knowledge in regard to the fixation of wages to the employees and that should not be ordinarily interfered by the Court.

9. in VASUDEVAN v. STATE OF KERALA AIR 1968 Kant 67 the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that the fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment by the appropriate Government is an administrative act which is final and is not subject to judicial review on the question of the quantum of the wages fixed. If, however, the fixation by the Government is ultra vires their powers under the Act, it admits of being so declared and corrected by the Court under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution. Similarly, it is held in a decision reported in U.P. CINEMA EXHIBITORS v. STATE OF UP 1977 Lab IC 993 that the nature of various picture houses and the paying capacity of the individual employers of those picture houses was not material. In fixing the minimum rates of wages as contemplated by the Act the hardship caused to individual employers or their inability to meet the burden has no relevance.

10. According to the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, Wages Board when constituted should have been left to regulate their own procedure in such manner as they think fit. It is unnecessary that any regulation should be made in regard to the procedure to be adopted, by them in the conduct of their enquiry. Further he submitted that it is not supposed to contain within itself the minutest analytical or arithmetical dissection of all aspects involved. If the report indicates the extensive coverage by the committee and that it had given full scope to both the employer and employee to represent their views and if the report indicates the material date collected was considered while making its recommendation then it is quite an acceptable report and not perfunctory one. The dispute in this case as stated earlier was that the Wage Committee has not given proper reason as to why this particular category of post has been separated from the other posts which were classified as one category of posts giving the same pay. He also submitted that the procedure contemplated by Section 5(1)(b) is not a quasi judicial reason need not be stated in the notification fixing the minimum wages. It is no doubt true that reasons need not be given to fix the minimum wages but reason ought to be given in separate categories of posts and to fix a different pay scale when hitherto all the posts were held to be in one category. In this case as stated earlier, no reason was assigned and a separate pay scale was fixed as far as Assistant Marine Surveyors are concerned.

11. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an expert committee may be constituted to examine all these aspects and to give a finding on that. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Award Committee constituted by the Trust consisting of experts and they had gone through all the aspects and therefore, there is no need for an expert committee to be constituted. He also submitted that the order passed by the Committee and accepted by the Industrial Tribunal does not call for interference. As stated earlier, though region-wise fixation of scale is preferable, but the Committee has not taken into consideration the nature of work, the responsibility and also the risk involved while fixing the scale. As indicated above, there is a different pay scale in respect of different regions for the same type of work. Therefore, it is not prohibitory for the Committee to fixed a different scale to fix higher scale of pay to the Asst. Marine Surveyors working in Mangalore Port.

12. The Learned Counsel for the respondent however contended that at this belated stage if this Court were to hold that the pay has to be re-fixed, it would amount to opening flood gates and greater anomaly would be caused. But at the same time, it would be calling upon the Management to take into consideration the nature of the work and other circumstances as indicated above.

13. From a perusal of the order it is dear that on a lower scale the pay is fixed at Rs. 720/- and on higher scale it is fixed for more than what is fixed for other 3 groups. That itself indicates that the Asst. Marine Surveyors really deserve the amount at least equivalent to the other 3 groups of employees. However, this Court cannot fix the pay scale of this group without other materials on record. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that an expert committee has to be appointed, to consider the case of the Asst. Marine Surveyors in the light of the observations made above.

14. In the result therefore, I proceed to pass the following: