THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25237 OF 2002 DATED 24th JANUARY, 2014 Between:
Visakhapatnam Port Employees Union. .. Petitioner and Visakhapatnam Port Trust and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25237 OF 2002 ORDER:
This writ petition was listed for hearing before this Court upon the specific direction of the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice.
The challenge by the Visakhapatnam Port Employees Union, the petitioner, is to Resolution Nos.81/2002-2003 and 83/2002-2003, both dated 11-12-2002, passed by the Trust Board of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. By these resolutions, the recruitment rules as regards the posts of Operator (Electrical Cranes) and Broad Gauge Diesel Loco Driver in the Visakhapatnam Port were amended. Initially, the petitioner union sought stay of further proceedings pursuant to these resolutions but no interim order to this effect was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner union impleaded the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, as respondent No.2 and one P. Venkata Ramana, who was promoted as a Broad Gauge Loco Driver by virtue of the amended rule, as respondent No.3. However, the order dated 21-02-2003 promoting the third respondent was not suspended by this Court and the petitioner union’s interlocutory petitions in this regard were dismissed on 06-03- 2003. The main prayer in the writ petition however remained untouched and no relief was sought against respondents 2 and 3. The writ petition is therefore dismissed against them.
At the outset, Sri Siva, learned counsel representing Sri Kommula Venkata Ratna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner union, stated that the writ petition was not being pressed in so far as the challenge to Resolution No.81/2002-2003 dated 11-12-2002 was concerned. Adjudication in the writ petition is therefore limited to Resolution No.83/2002-2003 dated 11-12-2002. By this resolution, the Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust resolved to amend the rule for recruitment to the post of Broad Gauge Diesel Loco Driver in the BG Loco Section of its Mechanical Engineering Department. Thereby, the feeder categories for promotion to the said post were altered. The existing and proposed rules for recruitment to this post, to the extent relevant, are tabulated hereunder:
EXISTING
PROPOSED
The petitioner union seeks to espouse the cause of Greasers and contends that inclusion of Motor Mechanics and Fitters in the promotional feeder category is illegal.
Be it noted that certain points raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition were not at all argued. However, as these aspects are reflected in the pleadings, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the same. The preliminary point of challenge by the petitioner union is that the action of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust in amending its recruitment rules was violative of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as an industrial dispute pertaining to Port employees was pending consideration before the National Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. It is however worthy to note that the said dispute was as to the manning scales applicable for various other posts in the Port and the deployment of workers for handling of cargo. The dispute had no relation whatsoever with the feeder categories for promotion to the post of Broad Gauge Loco Driver. The pendency of this industrial dispute therefore had no impact on the impugned amendment of the recruitment rule and the contention of the petitioner union in this regard is rejected.
The sheet anchor of the attack mounted by Sri Siva, learned counsel, is that inclusion of Motor Mechanics and Fitters in the feeder categories for promotion to the post of Broad Gauge Locomotive Driver is arbitrary, unreasonable and reflective of non-application of mind. Learned counsel contended that mere knowledge of mechanics would not translate into the required know-how to actually drive the locomotive. Drawing a parallel, he submitted that an aeroplane mechanic may well know the internal workings of a plane’s engine but would hardly be qualified to pilot the plane on the basis of such knowledge. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Operation and Maintenance wings in the Port were independent of each other and Motor Mechanics and Fitters from the Maintenance wing could not be inducted into the Operation wing by being promoted as drivers.
In its counter, the Visakhapatnam Port Trust sought to justify the amendment of its recruitment rule. It pointed out that the existing promotional feeder posts of Narrow Gauge Diesel Loco Drivers, Narrow Gauge Steam Loco Drivers and Drivers (Steam) were no longer available owing to decommissioning of narrow gauge and steam locomotives. Due to abolition of these posts, the rule was amended so as to bring Motor Mechanics and Fitters into the fold of the feeder categories in a prescribed ratio. The Port Trust denied that employees designated as ‘Operation’ or ‘Maintenance’ were not interchangeable and asserted that employees were bound to discharge duties as allotted by the management.
The petitioner union filed a reply to the above counter seeking to introduce some new facts vis-à-vis certain maintenance category employees considered for promotion as Broad Gauge Loco Drivers. However, these aspects are eschewed from consideration as they were not raised earlier.
On examination, this Court finds no merit in the challenge of the petitioner union. It cannot be denied that owing to decommissioning of narrow gauge and steam locomotives, Narrow Gauge Loco Drivers and Steam Loco Drivers are no longer available. In effect, the only post left in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Broad Gauge Diesel Loco Driver is that of Greaser. The petitioner union seems to be in favour of perpetuating this monopoly of Greasers. However, the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, in its wisdom, chose to amend its recruitment rule whereby it equated the posts of Motor Mechanic and Fitter with that of Greaser and clubbed all three of them in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Broad Gauge Diesel Loco Driver in set quotas.
Equation of posts is essentially a matter within the domain of the rule making authority, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in UNION
[1]
O F INDIA VS. N.Y. APTE , and unless it is established that an unreasonable or irrational criterion is followed, this Court would not interfere. In that case, the Supreme Court held that unequal feeder posts could also be equalized for the purpose of widening the field of consideration for promotion.
Therefore, unless the present amendment is demonstrated to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational, this Court would be chary of encroaching upon the administrative domain of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. It is for the Port Trust to maintain its staff structure and unless its decision is shown to be patently illegal and unsustainable, it is not for this Court to substitute its view or prevail over that of the Port Trust.
Admittedly, Greasers, Motor Mechanics and Fitters are all exposed to the workings of locomotives. By its nature, the post of Greaser also would not entail the actual driving of a locomotive by the incumbent as would be the case with the posts of Motor Mechanics and Fitters. Ergo, it is for the Port Trust to introduce sufficient measures and safeguards to ensure that those promoted as Drivers from these three feeder categories are sufficiently equipped and trained to undertake the driving of locomotives. But on this count the amendment of the rule does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. The analogy drawn by Sri Siva, learned counsel, with an aeroplane mechanic is specious. Driving of a locomotive on fixed rails is altogether different from flying an aeroplane in the open skies. Unequals cannot be thus equated. The comparison sought to be drawn between the two must therefore fail on this ground.
On the above analysis, this Court holds that the impugned amendment does not suffer from any illegality and no case is made out to interfere with the same. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 24th January, 2014 Svv
[1] (1998) 6 SCC 741