Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13
PETITIONER:
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
C.T. DIGHE AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1981
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
PATHAK, R.S.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1981 AIR 1699 1982 SCR (1) 107
1981 SCC (3) 545 1981 SCALE (3)1105
CITATOR INFO :
R 1986 SC1830 (39)
ACT:
Labour dispute-Changes made by the employer in the
existing scheme of promotion during the pendency of a
reference before the Tribunal-Whether such a change
contravened the provisions of section 33 (1) (a) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 giving rise to complaint will
depend on the nexus of the changes made and the nature of
the reference pending before the Tribunal.
HEADNOTE:
On May 13, 1972 the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay
issued Administration Circular No. 8 introducing a revised
scheme for promotion of employees as staff officers Grade A.
Feeling that the aforesaid Circular adversely affected them,
the stenographers filed a writ petition in the Andhra
Pradesh High Court challenging its validity, Their grievance
was that by the said circular No. 8 they were placed en-bloc
below the clerks which made their chances of promotion
illusory. On March 5, 1973 the Andhra Pradesh High Court
dismissed the writ petition, but made certain
recommendations to avoid frustration and dissatisfaction
among the stenographers. In 1973 charters of demands were
submitted to the Reserve Bank of India by the employees’
associations. On January 23, 1976 the Bank issued
Administration Circular No. 5 modifying Circular No. 8 to
remedy the alleged adverse effect suffered by stenographers
as a result of Circular No. 8.
On June 16, 1979, the Central Government in exercise of
powers conferred by section 7B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with
head-quarters at Bombay and referred to it for adjudication
an industrial dispute existing between the Reserve Bank of
India and their Class III workmen. The dispute as described
in the Schedule to the order of reference related to
"specific matters.. ...... ....pertaining to Class-III
workmen" enumerated in the Schedule. The Schedule listed 35
matters in all, item No. 12 of which is described as
"promotion". During the pendency of the reference, on
October 10, 1979 the Reserve Bank of India issued
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13
Administration Circular No. 6 introducing certain change in
the scheme of promotion set out in circular No. 8 by
relaxing certain conditions of eligibility for the personal
assistants, stenographers, tellers and the clerical staff.
Feeling aggrieved, some clerks (Grade I) who were empanelled
for promotion to the post of Staff Officer Grade A after
passing the test, filed two complaints before the National
Tribunal under section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act
alleging (i) that as a result of Circular No. 6 many who
could not have been considered for promotion in preference
to the complainants had Circular No. 8 been in force, would
now be entitled to a higher preference,
108
and (ii) that the alterations made during the pendency of
the reference before the National Tribunal amounted to
changing their conditions of service to their prejudice in
violation of section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes
Act inasmuch as their chances of promotion would recede. The
National Tribunal by its award dated September 3, 1980
disposed of these two complaints holding that the Reserve
Bank of India had changed to the prejudice of the
complainants their conditions of service by modifying the
existing scheme of promotion during the pendency of a
reference before the Tribunal and thereby contravened the
provisions of section 33 (1) (a). Hence the appeals by
special leave.
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the complaints, the
Court
^
HELD: 1: 1. The order of reference did not require the
Tribunal to adjudicate on all possible matters relating to
promotion. The Tribunal should have defined the area of the
dispute referred to it for adjudication before proceeding to
consider whether the promotional scheme set out in Circular
No. 6 could be said to be connected with that dispute. [117
G-H]
1 : 2. Item No. 12 of the Schedule annexed to the order
of reference is described as "promotion". Demand No. 19 in
the Charter of Demands presented by the All India Reserve
Bank Employees Association mentions "promotional avenues",
but the matters specified under the head "promotional
avenues" relate to the creation of more promotional posts
and the upgrading of certain posts. Demand No. 19 does not
thus relate to the promotional scheme in question. Demand
No. 27 of the Charter of Demands submitted by the All India
Reserve Bank Workers Organisation is described as
"promotional policy" and all that is said in the charter of
demands is that the matters "should be discussed and
finalised on the basis of prerequisites of promotional
policy submitted in 1969". Demand No. 27 could, therefore,
have no connection with the promotional scheme set out in
Circular No. 6 issued in 1979. [116 C-E]
1: 3. Under section 10 (1A) the Central Government
could refer to the National Tribunal an existing or an
apprehended dispute; the order or reference in this case
shows that it was not an apprehended dispute but an
industrial dispute that "exists between the employers in
relation to the Reserve Bank of India and their class III
workmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule"
annexed to the order which was referred to the Tribunal for
adjudication. As section 10 (1A) expressly says, any matter
appearing to be connected or relevant to the existing or
apprehended dispute can also be referred to the National
Tribunal for adjudication, but obviously unless it is
determined what the dispute was that has been referred for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13
adjudication, it is not possible to say whether a particular
matter is connected with it. [117 C-E]
2: 1. What circular No. 6 did was to relax for
stenographers and personal assistants the conditions they
had to satisfy to be able to sit for the test. It they
passed the test, they would get into the panel along with
employees belonging to the clerical cadre who also had
passed the test. Vacancies in the posts of staff officer
Grade A are filled by recruiting employees from the panel.
The panel is a permanent one. Alterations of the conditions
of the eligibility governing employees belonging to a
particular cadre can amount to changing the conditions of
service of employees who belonged another cadre, assuming
for the present
109
that the said conditions were conditions of service. The
changes introduced in respect of the stenographers and
personal assistants may have an impact on the promotional
prospects of employees from another cadre who are already in
the panel or even of those who were expecting to be included
in the panel, but this would not amount to changing their
conditions of service. The conditions of service of an
employee cannot include an implied right to prevent the
employer from altering the conditions of service of other
employees. In a given case such alteration may be
inequitable, and a way may be found in the Industrial
Disputes Act to redress the grievance of the employees
affected thereby. [118 B-F]
2: 2. It was competent for the Bank to introduce a
combined promotional scheme for the clerical staff,
stenographers, and personal assistants and the Bank was not
bound to wait until all employees belonging to the clerical
cadre whose names were already in the panel when Circular
No. 6 was introduced had been promoted as staff officers
Grade A. There was no such assurance given by the Bank when
it introduced Circular No. 8. The Bank did not undertake
that it would not take any step to change the conditions of
the stenographers and the personal assistants were required
to satisfy to be able to appear in the test until all the
clerks already empanelled were promoted. Circular No. 6
cannot therefore be assailed on the ground that it was
introduced when some employees belonging to the clerical
grade whose names were already in the panel remained to be
promoted. [121 B-E]
Being in the panel in any particular year does not
ensure a fixed place in the panel for an employee until he
is promoted. The right the complainants now claim is based
on the change in the conditions of service of the
stenographers made to their detriment earlier. [121 E-F]
Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal [1977] 1 SCR 377,
followed.
3. It is well settled that a rule which affects the
promotion of a person relates to his condition of service
but this is not so if what is affected is a chance of
promotion only. Though a right to be considered for
promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of
promotion are not and that a rule which merely affects
chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a
condition of service. [121 G-H, 122 A, C-D]
The fact that as a result of the changes made by
Circular No. 6 the complainants lost a few places in the
panel affects their chances of promotion but not the right
to be considered for promotion. That being so, it cannot be
said that the alterations made by Circular No. 6 amount to
changing the conditions of service of the complainants; the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13
grievance made by the complainants does not therefore appear
to have any basis. [122 G-H, 123 A-B]
Mohd. Shujat Ali and others etc. v. Union of India &
Ors. etc., [1975] 1 SCR 449; State of Mysore v. G.B.
Purohit, C.A. 2281 of 1965 decided on 25-1-1967 (S.C.)
unreported, applied.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No. 2815 &
2816 of 1980.
110
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated the 3rd
September, 1980 of the National Industrial Tribunal at
Bombay in Complaint No. NTB 2 and NTB 3 of 1980 arising out
of Reference No. NTB 1 of 1979.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2607 of 1980
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated the 3rd
Sept. 1980 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal,
Bombay in Complaints Nos. NTB 2 & 3 of 1980 in Reference No.
NTB 1 of 1979.
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3150 of 1980
Appeal by Special leave from the Award dated 3rd
September, 1980 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal,
Bombay in Complaints Nos. NTB 2 & 3 of 1980 in Reference No.
NTB 1 of 1979.
F.S. Nariman R.A. Shroff, H.S. Parihar and Shradul S.
Shroff, for the Appellant in CAS 2815-16/80, for Respondent
No. 2 in CA. 2607/80 & for Respondent No. 1 in C.A. 3150/80.
C. N. Murthy and P. P. Mittal for Respondent No. 1 in
CA. 2815-16/80.
M.K. Ramamurthy, P.S. Khera and S.K. Dawar, for RR 2-70
in CAS. 2815-16/80, for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2607/80 & for
Respondent Nos. 3 & 40-67 in CA. 3150/80.
K.K. Venugopal, C.N. Murthy and P.P. Mittal 1980 for
the Appellants.
A.K. Sen, A.K. Gupta, Brij Bhushan, N.P. Mahendra and
Miss Renu Gupta, for the Appellants in CA. 3150/80.
S.K. Bisaria for RR. 2-4 and 6-39 in CA. 3150/80.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J. These are four appeals by special leave from
an Award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, made
on September 3, 1980 disposing of two complaints under
section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 holding
that the employer,
111
Reserve Bank of India, Bombay had changed to the prejudice
of the complainants their conditions of service by modifying
the existing scheme of promotion during the pendency of a
reference before the Tribunal and had thereby contravened
the provisions of section 33 (1) (a) of the Act. Civil
Appeals 2815 and 2816 of 1980 have been preferred by the
Reserve Bank of India, Bombay. In civil appeal 2607 of 1980
the appellants are some of the stenographers employed in the
Bombay office of the Reserve Bank of India. The four
appellants in civil appeal 3150 of 1980 are also employees
of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, one of whom is a clerk
grade I and the other three are officiating as staff
officers grade A. How the appellants in Civil Appeals 2607
and 3150 are affected by the Award will appear from the
facts stated below.
The facts leading to the making of the complaints under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13
section 33-A are as follows. On June 16, 1979 the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers
conferred by section 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with headquarters
at Bombay and referred to it for adjudication an industrial
dispute existing between the Reserve Bank of India and their
class III workmen. The dispute as described in the schedule
to the order of reference related to "specific matters
pertaining to class III workmen" enumerated in the schedule.
The schedule listed 35 matters in all, item No. 12 of which
is described as ’Promotion’.
On May 13, 1972 appellant Reserve Bank of India,
Bombay, had issued Administration Circular No. 8 introducing
a revised scheme for promotion of employees as Staff
Officers Grade A. This Circular No. 8 prescribed as a
condition for promotion passing a test consisting of three
papers on the following subjects: noting, drafting, precis &
essay writing, (ii) Reserve Bank of India Act, and (iii)
functions and working of the Reserve Bank of India.
Candidates with less than 15 years’ service in class III
cadre at the time of the test and who had not passed in the
subjects ’Practice and Law of Banking’ and ’Book-keeping and
Accounts’ in Part I of the Institute of Bankers Examination
were to appear and pass in an extra paper divided into two
parts on the aforesaid two subjects. Candidates who had
passed in either or both these subjects in part I of the
Institute of Bankers Examination were exempted from
appearing in the corresponding part or both parts of this
paper. The circular further provided that an estimate of the
vacancies anticipated to occur in each office during a
’panel year’ i. e. from September 1 to
112
August 31, was to be declared by the Bank in advance and the
number of candidates in that office to be called for the
test to fill the vacancies in that office was not to exceed
twice the number of such vacancies. A candidate who had been
unsuccessful in more than one test was to be treated as a
repeater and the number of such repeaters sitting for a test
would be in addition to the aforesaid number of candidates.
An employee in the substantive rank of teller, stenographer
grade II, stenographer grade I or personal assistant was
eligible to appear in the test under this circular provided
he had put in a minimum period of 15 years’ service in class
III cadre. A further condition relating to these three types
of employees, tellers, stenographers and personal
assistants, was that they could be called to appear in the
test only if a clerical candidate of the same length of
service found a place within twice the number in the
combined seniority list. The said three types of employees
were required to pass both parts I and II of the Institute
of Bankers examination, or if they were graduates, in part I
only. Those of them who would pass the test were to be
posted on the clerical desk for one year for acquiring
experience and thereafter they were to be absorbed in the
next list to be prepared on the result of the test
succeeding the one in which they had passed. They were to
rank in seniority below the juniormost successful candidate
in the test in which they qualified. A further requirement
was that the stenographers and personal assistants should
have worked for at least 5 years as such; this condition was
thought necessary because it was possible that some of them
may have been employed as typists for some time.
Feeling that the aforesaid circular No. 8 adversely
affected them, the Stenographers filed a writ petition in
the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13
the circular. The main grievance seems to have been that by
the said Circular No. 8 they were placed en bloc below the
clerks which made the chances of promotion so far as they
were concerned illusory. The Andhra Pradesh High Court
dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
".....the clerks and the stenographers who have
passed at the qualifying written examination do not
acquire any right to promotion by merely being put in a
panel. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case
cited in Gangaram v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C.
2178, the effect of passing at the qualifying
examination is only
113
to remove a hurdle in their way for further promotions
to the posts of staff officers, grade II. In the matter
of actual promotion there is nothing illegal in the
department promoting the clerks as a group in the first
instance and postponing the promotions of the
stenographers to a later stage.....It is urged on
behalf of the petitioners that previous to the new
scheme, the stenographers were placed at the top of the
clerks en bloc and that they have now been brought to
the bottom.
This argument is based upon a misconception that
the panel creates any rights. Hence nothing turns upon
the place fixed in the panel".
The High Court however made certain recommendations "to
avoid frustration and dissatisfaction among the
stenographers". It was suggested that "the Reserve Bank may
frame suitable rules for fixing the seniority among the
staff officers, grade II, on some rational and equitable
principles, i.e., by length of service or marks obtained at
the qualifying examination or by adopting a reasonable ratio
between the two classes, so that the chances of further
promotions for the stenographers may not be illusory". This
judgment was delivered on March 5,1973. In the months of
March and November, 1973 charters of demand were submitted
respectively by the All India Reserve Bank Workers
Organisation and the All India Reserve Bank Employees
Association. The latter Association is the one which is
recognised by the Bank. On January 23, 1976 by
Administration Circular No. 5 the Bank modified Circular No.
8 to remedy the alleged adverse effect suffered by the
stenographers as a result of Circular No. 8. On June 16,
1979 the order referring to the National Tribunal at Bombay
the dispute between the Bank and the class III workmen was
made. The All India Reserve Bank Employees Association filed
a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court in July 1979
challenging this order of reference. The High Court at
Calcutta issued an injunction restraining the National
Tribunal from adjudicating on the reference until the writ
petition was disposed of. A settlement was thereafter
reached between the Bank and the All India Reserve Bank
Employees Association and the injunction was vacated. On
November 21, 1979 the Bank and the Association applied to
the Tribunal jointly for making an award on the basis of the
settlement.
In the meantime on October, 10, 1979 the impugned
Circular No. 6 was issued. The following changes were
introduced by Circular
114
No. 6 in the scheme of promotion set out in Circular No. 8
relating to personal assistants, stenographers, tellers and
the clerical staff:
(1) The eligibility period so far as these three types
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13
are concerned was reduced from 15 years to 10
years service.
(2) The condition requiring stenographers and personal
assistants to put in 5 years service as such was
dispensed with.
(3) Their period of training on clerical desk was
reduced from 1 year to six months.
(4) They were to be fitted according to the length of
their service in the panel for the year in which
they passed the test and not in the next panel as
before.
(5) Those who are graduates among these three groups,
even if they had not passed in all the subjects in
part I of Indian Institute of Bankers examination,
would be eligible for exemption from appearing in
the additional paper on ’Practice and Law of
Banking’ and ’Book-keeping and accounts’ if they
had passed in these two subjects in the said
examination.
(6) This benefit of exemption which was available to
the clerical staff of 15 years’ standing
previously was extended to those of them who had
put in only 10 years service.
The two complaints (complaint Nos. 2 and 3 of 1980) on
which the impugned award has been made were filed
respectively on July 22, 1980 and August 1, 1980. The
complainants who were clerks grade I had passed the test in
the panel year 1978-79 and were empanelled for promotion to
the post of staff officer grade A. The grievance made in the
two complaints is that the result of the changes introduced
in the promotional scheme by Circular No. 6 relaxing for the
stenographers and personal assistants the conditions they
were required to satisfy to be able to sit for the test and
permitting them to be fitted according to the length of
their service in the panel for the year in which they had
passed the test, was that many who could not have been
considered for promotion in preference to the complainants
had circular No. 8 been in force, would
115
now be entitled to a higher preference. According to the
complainants the alterations made during the pendency of the
reference before the National Tribunal amounted to changing
their conditions of service to their prejudice in violation
of section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
complainants in complaint No. 2 of 1980 stated that if the
alterations introduced by Circular No. 6 were allowed to
continue "the chances of promotion would become bleak for
them’; complainants in complaint No. 3 of 1980 also
expressed a similar apprehension that as a result of the
changes introduced "their chances of promotion would recede
further and further".
The appellants in civil appeal 2607 of 1980 who are
stenographers acquired eligibility to appear in the
qualifying test because of the modifications introduced in
the existing scheme by Circular No. 6. All the four
appellants in civil appeal 3150 of 1980 are from clerical
cadre, three of whom are officiating as staff officers grade
A; they are also beneficiaries of the relaxations made in
the existing scheme by circular No. 6. The appellants in
both these appeals are obviously affected by the Award
allowing the complaints and declaring circular No. 6 as
invalid.
Section 33 (1) (a) prohibits the employer during the
pendency of a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute
before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13
altering to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in the
dispute their existing conditions of service. Sub-section
(2) of section 33, however, permits the employer to alter
the conditions of service in regard to any matter not
connected with the dispute in accordance with the standing
orders applicable to the workman concerned or in accordance
with the terms of the contract between the employer and the
workman. The right given to the employer under sub-section
(2) is subject to the condition laid down in sub-section (3)
of section 33 that the right can be exercised only with the
express permission in writing of the authority before which
the proceeding is pending. Section 33-A of the Act provides
that where an employer contravenes the provisions of section
33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal any employee aggrieved by such
contravention may make complaint in writing to such Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, and on receipt of such
complaint the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal
shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute
referred to it or pending before it in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and submit its award to the
appropriate government. Section 31 (1) of the Act provides
for penalty for contravention of the provisions of section
33; an
116
employer found guilty of such contravention is punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with
both.
In this case circular No. 6 was not introduced with the
permission of the National Tribunal, Bombay, before which
the reference was pending; to determine whether thereby the
provisions of section 33 have been contravened, the question
that requires to be answered is whether the alterations
introduced by Circular No. 6 are connected with the dispute
pending in reference before the National Tribunal. This
again leads to the question, what was the dispute that was
referred to the National Tribunal for adjudication?
According to the complainants their promotional prospects
were adversely affected by the impugned circular. Item 12 of
the schedule annexed to the order of reference is described
as ’Promotion’. Demand No. 19 in the charter of demands
presented by the All India Reserve Bank Employees
Association mentions ’Promotional avenues’ but, as the
National Tribunal itself noticed, the matters specified
under the head ’promotional avenues’ relate to the creation
of more promotional posts and the upgrading of certain
posts. Demand No. 19 does not thus relate to the promotional
scheme in question. The impugned award also refers to demand
No. 27 of the charter of demands submitted by the All India
Reserve Bank Workers organisation. Demand No. 27 is
described as ’Promotional Policy’ and all that is said in
the charter of demands under this head is that the matter
"should be discussed and finalised on the basis of pre-
requisites of promotional policy submitted in 1969". It is
not therefore clear how demand No. 27 could have a
connection with the promotional scheme set out in circular
No. 6 issued in 1979. The award does not refer to the
statements of claim filed on behalf of the workmen; it is
likely that because of the order of injunction issued by the
Calcutta High Court to which we have earlier referred, the
unions representing the workmen were not able to file their
statements of claim before the National Tribunal disposed of
the complaints under section 33A. The Tribunal however held:
"Industrial Disputes Act contemplates reference in wider
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13
terms than the actual item in dispute. Section 10 (IA) of
the Industrial Disputes Act which provides for the
appointment of the National Tribunal shows that the Central
Government could form its opinion not only on the existing
dispute but also on the apprehended dispute and the order of
reference can cover not only the dispute but any matter
appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute.
In view of it, it cannot be said that when the item
’Promotion’ has been referred to
117
the Tribunal, it has the limitation of remaining in the
frame work of the demand.. the Tribunal has the jurisdiction
to decide on the natural meaning of the words used in the
item of reference.. The item seems to have been deliberately
stated in terms.. it looks to be referring to the process
involving promotions." Having said so the Tribunal added:
"The extent of such process will have to be carefully
defined because there is no dispute with the axiomatic
principle that promotion is a matter in the discretion of
the employer".
It is difficult to follow the steps of reasoning in the
extract from the award quoted above; it is also not clear
how the view expressed therein helps in ascertaining what
was the dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.
No one can deny that under section 10 (IA) the Central
Government could refer to the National Tribunal an existing
or an apprehended dispute; the order or reference in this
case however shows that it was not an apprehended dispute
but an industrial dispute that "exists between the employers
in relation to the Reserve Bank of India and their class III
workmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule"
annexed to the order which was referred to the Tribunal for
adjudication. As section 10 (IA) expressly says, any matter
appearing to be connected or relevant to the existing or
apprehended dispute can also be referred to the National
Tribunal for adjudication, but obviously unless it is
determined what the dispute was that has been referred for
adjudication, it is not possible to say whether a particular
matter is connected with it. The Tribunal thought it unjust
to restrict the meaning of the word ’promotion’ to what was
suggested by the charters of demand and decided to give it
its "natural meaning" which according to the Tribunal
includes "the process involving promotion". The question
however remains how did the Tribunal satisfy itself that
when by the order of reference a specific matter, namely,
’promotion’ was referred to it for adjudication, it was
implied that the word should be given a "natural meaning" in
the sense in which the Tribunal understood it. We do not
think it reasonable to suppose that the order of reference
required the Tribunal to adjudicate on all possible matters
relating to promotion. We therefore accept the contention of
the appellants that the Tribunal should have defined the
area of the dispute referred to it for adjudication before
proceeding to consider whether the promotional scheme set
out in Circular No. 6 could be said to be connected with
that dispute.
118
Having reached this conclusion we should have sent the
matter back to the National Tribunal for ascertaining the
scope of the dispute referred to it for adjudication, if the
assumption were correct that the alterations in the
promotional scheme introduced by Circular No. 6 amounted to
changing the conditions of service of the complainants; if
not, remitting the matter to the Tribunal will be
unnecessary. What Circular No. 6 did was to relax for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13
stenographers and personal assistants the conditions they
had to satisfy to be able to sit for the test. If they
passed the test, they would get into the penal along with
employees belonging to the clerical cadre who also had
passed the test. Vacancies in the post of staff officer
Grade A are filled by recruiting employees from the panel.
The panel, it appears from the award, is a permanent one.
How those who come out successful in the test are to be
fitted in the panel has been stated earlier. The panel is
made up of employees belonging to different cadres. It is
difficult to see how alteration of the conditions of
eligibility governing employees belonging to a particular
cadre can amount to changing the conditions of service of
employees who belonged to another cadre, assuming for the
present that the said conditions were conditions of service.
The changes introduced in respect of the stenographers and
personal assistants may have an impact on the promotional
prospects of employees from another cadre who are already in
the panel or even of those who were expecting to be included
in the panel, but it is not possible to agree that this
would amount to changing their conditions of service. It is
difficult to think of the conditions of service of an
employee as including an implied right to prevent the
employer from altering the conditions of service of other
employees. In a given case such alteration may be
inequitable, and a way may be found in the Industrial
Disputes Act to redress the grievance of the employees
affected thereby, but in this case the question is whether
if amount to altering the condition of service of the
complainants. In Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal this
Court upheld the validity of the combined seniority scheme
introduced by the Reserve Bank for the clerical staff. The
first paragraph of the head note to the report summarizes
the facts on which challenge to the scheme was based:
"At every centre of the Reserve Bank of India
there were five departments, the General
Department and four Specialised Departments. There
was a separate
119
seniority list for the employees in each
Department at each centre and confirmation and
promotion of employees was only in the vacancies
arising within their Department at each centre.
There were two grades of clerks in each
Department, namely, Grade I and Grade II. The pay
scales of Grade I and Grade II clerks in all the
departments were the same and their conditions of
service were also identical. There was automatic
promotion from Grade II to Grade I and when a
clerk from Grade II was promoted to officiate in
Grade I, he got an additional officiating
allowance of Rs. 25/- per month. There were also
several categories of non-clerical posts in the
General as well as Specialised Departments, and
their pay scale was the same as that of Grade II
clerks. In view of expanding activities in the
Specialised Departments, there were greater
opportunities for confirmation and promotion for
employees in the Specialised Departments than in
the General Department. This gave rise to
dissatisfaction amongst employees in the General
Department and they claimed equal opportunities by
having a combined seniority list for all the
clerks for confirmation and promotion. The Reserve
Bank, sought to justify the separate seniority
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13
lists on the ground that the work in each
department was of a special nature and inter
transferability was undesirable and hard to
achieve. As a result of the recommendation of the
National Tribunal. however, the Reserve Bank
introduced the Optee Scheme of 1965 as a first
step towards equalization of opportunities. Under
the scheme, the option to go over to the
Specialised Departments was confined to confirmed
Grade II clerks and officiating Grade I clerks in
the General Department. If he exercised the
option, he was eligible to be selected. If he was
selected. he would be entitled to be absorbed only
as Grade II clerk in one of the Specialised
Departments with the result that if he was an
officiating Grade I clerk in the General
Department at the time of the exercise of the
option, he would lose the benefit of officiation
in Grade I in the General Department as also the
monetary benefit of Rs. 25/-. His seniority in the
cadre of Grade II clerks in the Specialised
Department in which he was absorbed would be
deter-
120
mined on the basis of his length of service
calculated from the date of his recruitment if he
was a graduate when he joined service, or from the
date of his graduation if he became a graduate
whilst in service.
It was argued in Paliwal’s case that the combined list
was invalid because it discriminated against the petitioners
vis-a-vis other grade II clerks who had opted under the
optee Scheme of 1965. This Court held:
"The contention of the petitioners was that some
of the Grade II clerks who had opted under the
optee Scheme of 1965 were promoted as Grade I
Clerks, while the petitioners continued as Grade
II Clerks and before their turn for promotion
could arrive, the Combined Seniority Scheme was
brought into force and that prejudicially affected
their promotional opportunities and thus brought
about unjust discrimination between persons
belonging to the same class. This contention has
no force and must be rejected. We have already
discussed and shown that it was competent to the
Reserve Bank to introduce the Combined Seniority
Scheme for the purpose of integrating the clerical
staff in all the departments and the Reserve Bank
was not bound to wait until all the transferee
Grade II Clerks under the optee Scheme of 1965
were promoted as Grade I Clerks in their
respective Specialised Departments. There was no
such assurance given by the Reserve Bank when it
introduced the optee Scheme of 1965. What it did
was merely to equalise the opportunities of Grade
II Clerks in the General Departments with those of
Grade II Clerks in the Specialised Departments.
The Reserve Bank did not undertake that it will
not take any steps for bringing about total
integration of the Clerical services until all the
transferee Grade II Clerks were promoted. The
Reserve Bank was entitled to introduce the
Combined Seniority Scheme at any time it thought
fit and the validity of the Combined Seniority
Scheme cannot be assailed on the ground that it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13
was introduced at a time when some of the
transferee Grade II Clerks still remained to be
promoted and was discriminatory
121
against them. It may be that some transferee Grade
II Clerks had already obtained promotion as Grade
I Clerks by the time the Combined Seniority Scheme
was introduced, while others like the petitioners
had not. But that cannot be helped. It is all part
of the incidence of service and in law, no
grievance can be made against it."
These observations in Paliwal’s case are equally applicable
to the case before us. It was competent for the Bank to
introduce a combined promotional scheme for the clerical
staff, stenographers, and personal assistants and the Bank
was not bound to wait until all employees belonging to the
clerical cadre whose names were already in the panel when
circular No. 6 was introduced had been promoted as staff
officers Grade A. There was no such assurance given by the
Bank when it introduced circular No. 8 on which the
complainants rely. The Bank did not undertake that it would
not take any step to change the conditions the stenographers
and the personal assistants were required to satisfy to be
able to appear in the test until all the clerks already
empanelled were promoted. Circular No. 6 cannot therefore be
assailed on the ground that it was introduced when some
employees belonging to the clerical grade whose names were
already in the panel remained to be promoted. That cannot be
helped, and, as observed in Paliwal’s case, "it is all part
of the incidence of service and in law no grievance can be
made against it". Being in the panel in any particular year
does not ensure a fixed place in the panel for an employee
until he is promoted. It may be recalled that in 1964 and
again by circular No. 8 in 1972 the stenographers conditions
of service were altered to their prejudice. The right the
complainants now claim is based on the change in the
conditions of service of the stenographers made to their
detriment earlier.
The grievance of the complainants really relates to the
changes affecting their chances of promotion. We have
earlier quoted from the charters of demand to show that the
complainants themselves looked upon the alterations made by
circular No. 6 as affecting their "chances of promotion". It
is well settled that a rule which affects the promotion of a
person relates to his condition of service but this is not
so if what is affected is a chance of
122
promotion only. This Court in Mohd. Shujat Ali and others
etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. held:
"But when we speak of a right to be considered for
promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance
of promotion-the latter would certainly not be a
condition of service...that though a right to be
considered for promotion is a condition of
service, mere chances of promotion are not."
In Shujat Ali’s case the respondents went down in seniority
and it was urged that this affected their chances of
promotion. In Shujat Ali reference was made to earlier
decision of this Court, State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit
where also it was held that though a right to be considered
for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of
promotion are not and that a rule which merely affects
chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a
condition of service. The facts of Purohit’s case and what
was decided in that case have been summarized in Shujat
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13
Ali’s case as follows:
"What happened in State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit
was that the districtwise seniority of Sanitary
Inspectors was changed to Statewise seniority and
as a result of this change, the respondents went
down in seniority and became very junior. This, it
was urged, affected their chances of promotion
which were protected...This contention was
negatived and Wanchoo J., as he then was, speaking
on behalf of this Court observed: It is said on
behalf of the respondents that as their chances of
promotion have been affected their conditions of
service have been changed to their disadvantage.
We see no force in this argument because chances
of promotion are not conditions of service."
The fact that as a result of the changes made by
circular No. 6 the complainants lost a few places in the
panel affects their chances of promotion but not the right
to be considered for promotion.
123
that being so, it cannot be said that the alterations made
by circular No. 6 amount to changing the conditions of
service of the complainants; the grievance made by the
complainants does not therefore appear to have any basis.
The appeals are accordingly allowed and the complaints
dismissed, in the circumstances of the case the parties will
bear their own costs.
V.D.K. Appeals allowed.
124