Petitioners 1 to 3 are skilled workers employed in the 1st respondent/Co-operative Society; respondents 4 and 6 retired as skilled workers and respondents 5 and 7 as semi-skilled workers. Admittedly, they were employed as piece rated workers from various dates falling between 1976 to 1985. Going by the averments, the petitioners were respectively engaged in the Society from 03.05.1976, 31.05.1978, 17.06.1985, 01.03.1976, 13.01.1976, 03.05.1976 and 31.05.1978. It is also admitted that though they were later adjusted on a consolidated pay, their services as semi-skilled worker in a regular scale of pay was regularised only on 01.08.1986. All of them were also promoted as skilled workers.
2. While, they were so continuing in service, in the year 2000, by Ext.P1, a Pay Revision order was brought into effect. WP(C).10346/11 2 By the Pay Revision order, three higher grades were provided first, on the completion of ten years and then, on completion of eight years and the 3rd higher grade on completion of 23 years. There is no dispute with respect to the first two higher grades which have been granted to the petitioners, along with the other employees. The dispute raised in the present writ petition is with respect to the 3rd higher grade which according to the petitioners, they are entitled to, on completion of 23 years from the date of their original engagement as piece rated workers. They also rely on Exts.P3 and P6 to contend that in similar circumstances, the earlier service of employees were reckoned for the purpose of granting higher grade and that Ext.P6 would clearly establish their claims.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Society however, would take me to the counter affidavit wherein the service details of each of the petitioners have been enumerated which would indicate that what has been stated by the petitioners with respect to their initial engagement and regularisation as semi-skilled worker, WP(C).10346/11 3 promotion as skilled worker are all correct. The claim however, is that the earlier engagement also is to be computed for deciding the 3rd higher grade. The Society refutes it on the ground that the employment as piece-rated workers, cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners, for considering the 3rd higher grade.
4. Ext.P3 is projected to support the contention of discrimination. On a reading of Ext.P3, it is clear that two skilled workers had made a similar claim before this Court in W.P.(C). 17189 of 2007, which claim was directed to be considered by the authority. The Managing Director of the 1st respondent/Society considered the same and found that the two employees had joined the Calendering Plant at Pappanamcode of the Kerala State Textiles Corporation as semi-skilled workers on 08.05.1981, which Plant was later taken over by the 1st respondent/Society. At the time of take over, there was also an agreement with the representative unions of the employees based on which, the two employees were promoted to the post of skilled worker. In fact, the specific contention raised by the WP(C).10346/11 4 employees therein was that the higher grade is not based on the pay scale and it is based on the actual service from the date of appointment as semi-skilled workers. This contention was upheld by the Managing Director in Ext.P3. No discrimination can be found from the said findings, insofar as permitting treatment of petitioners' service as piece rated workers, to be reckoned for granting of higher grade. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioners also would be entitled to be granted the higher grade reckoning their service from 01.10.1986 on which date they were also regularised in a regular scale of pay and appointed as semi-skilled workers in the regular service of the Corporation.
5. Ext.P6 has been relied upon to contend that the same has been passed, relying upon Ext.P3. It is contended that it has been recommended in Ext.P6, that the petitioners' earlier service as piece-rated workers also be reckoned for granting higher grade as per Ext.P1. It is to be specifically noticed that Ext.P6 has been issued by the General Manager, HANTEX Process House , the 2nd respondent, who is not the competent WP(C).10346/11 5 authority to decide upon the same. As is revealed from the records, the competent authority to decide on the date, from which the service has to be reckoned, is the 1st respondent, the Managing Director. Ext.P6, though was a recommendation granted by the General Manager to the petitioners who were working under him, the same was rejected by Ext.P7, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. It is specifically to be noticed that the petitioners' claim arose from the year 1976 and the same is based on the revision of pay brought in by Ext.P1 dated 20.07.2000. Reckoning 23 years from the date of claim of the petitioners, all of them, except the 3rd petitioner, would be entitled for the 3rd higher grade between 1999 and 2001. The 3rd petitioner also would be so entitled in 2008. Admittedly, no proceedings were taken by either of the petitioners to agitate their claims when such cause of action arose. It was in 2011 that the petitioners approached this Court with the present writ petition alleging discrimination and claiming grant of higher grade from the date on which they were employed as piece-rated workers. For that reason also, the WP(C).10346/11 6 claim is liable to be negatived. The Managing Director who has considered the case of the petitioners has, by Ext.P7, rejected the same which is found to be valid and legal, but for the rider placed by this Court with respect to the service from 01.10.1986. Hence, Ext.P6 would stand set aside only to the extent it denies the higher grade on reckoning the service of the petitioners from 01.10.1986, ie: the date on which they were appointed as semi- skilled workers. The petitioners' service hence shall be reckoned from 01.10.1986 and they shall be granted the higher grade 23 years therefrom.
Writ petition partly allowed. No costs.
SD/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //true copy//