IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14388 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ALL KERALA TEXTILE WORKERS AND STAFF FEDERATION, HANTEX PROCESS UNION, PAPPANAMCODE, REG. NO. 423/1983, K.T.U.C NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT. 2. K. BAHULEYAN, UNSKILLED WORKERS, HANTEX PROCESS HOUSE, PAPPANAMCODE, (AGED 56, S/O.V. KUTTAN PANICKER, HARI SREE, PAYATTUVILA.P.O, VIA BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, INUDSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE REGISTRAR, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO. H 232, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GENERAL MANAGER, HANTEX PROCESS HOUSE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14388 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. M.K.Chandra Mohan Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 2. The first petitioner is a registered trade union of employees of the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.H.232, Thiruvananthapuram, otherwise known as HANTEX. The second petitioner is an unskilled worker employed in HANTEX and a member of the first petitioner trade union. Ext.P1 produced in this writ petition is the list of unskilled workers, twenty in number, who are members of the first petitioner trade union. 3. The second petitioner and the other nineteen persons named in Ext.P1 list entered service as unskilled workers in HANTEX on 1.6.1990. During the year 1998 they were drawing salary in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-5230/-. With effect from 1.1.1998, the scale of pay of unskilled workers in HANTEX was revised as Rs.3350-5275/- the scale of pay of semi-skilled workers. The revision of pay took effect from 1.1.1998. The second petitioner and the other nineteen persons named in Ext.P1 list were given salary in the higher scale of pay. Later, due to the W.P.(C) No. 14388/09 2 intervention of the Government, the Director of HANTEX issued an order dated 6.7.2000 withdrawing the pay revision benefits. Later, by order dated 5.1.2001, the Managing Director ordered recovery of the excess salary drawn by the unskilled workers. The petitioners herein thereupon filed O.P.No.2425of 2001 in this Court. While the said original petition was pending, pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors of HANTEX, the Managing Director of HANTEX issued an order dated 19.8.2002 restoring the benefits that had been withdrawn by the order dated 6.7.2000. In that view of the matter this Court disposed of O.P.No.2425 of 2001 by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 10.7.2008 with the direction that the unskilled workers represented by the first petitioner union, in whose favour an interim order has been passed in the writ petition, and who were thereby getting salary in the scale of pay of semi-skilled workers will continue to draw the same. Though the Managing Director of HANTEX filed an application seeking certain clarifications, that application was dismissed by Ext.P3 order passed on 2.12.2008. The second petitioner and the other unskilled workers who are members of the first petitioner union thereby continued to draw revised salary from 1.1.1998 in the scale of pay of semi-skilled workers. 4. In the meanwhile, the Board of Directors of HANTEX that met on 25.7.2006 resolved to grant time bound higher grade promotion to unskilled W.P.(C) No. 14388/09 3 workers subject to the rider that arrears on that count will be disbursed only with effect from 1.5.2006. The Managing Director thereupon issued Ext.P5 proceedings dated 21.12.2006 incorporating the decision of the Board of Directors. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order was passed in respect of the second petitioner sanctioning him first time bound higher grade promotion in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-90-4090-100-6090 with effect from 1.6.2000 (on completion of 10 years of service) and also fixed his pay as indicated therein. It was further directed that he will be entitled to arrears of salary and allowances only with effect from 1.5.2006. It appears, the decision evidenced by Ext.P5 was the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 17189 of 2007 wherein this Court held that there is not even any consistency in the matter of payment of salary and other service benefits in the HANTEX. This Court in that view of the matter directed the HANTEX to take a decision on the request made by the petitioners therein. As directed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the Managing Director of HANTEX issued Ext.P8 letter to the General Manager, HANTEX, directing him to compute the arrears of salary and allowances to be paid to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 17189 of 2007 with effect from 1.12.1999, the date on which they completed 10 years of service as unskilled workers. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Ext.P5 to the extend it stipulates that payment of back arrears consequent on account of time bound grade promotion will be limited to the arrears due W.P.(C) No. 14388/09 4 from 1.5.2006 only. 5. The third respondent has filed a statement contending that the petitioners have not furnished the details of their entry in service and therefore they are not in a position to furnish the exact details in the matter. It is also contended that they were granted time bound higher grade promotion with effect from 1.1.1998 when their pay was hiked from the scale of pay of Rs.3050-5230 to 3350-5275. Respondents 3 and 4 contend that the claim made by the petitioners is therefore plainly untenable. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P6 produced along with the writ petition indicates that 17 Upper Division Clerks working in the HANTEX were sanctioned time bound higher grade promotion on completion of 8 years of service with effect from 1.12.1999 and that they were also given arrears consequent on such grade promotion with effect from that date. However, in the case of unskilled workers, the stand taken by the HANTEX is that though they are entitled to grade promotion on completion of 10 years of service, payment of arrears consequent on grade promotion will be given only with effect from 1.5.2006. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been discriminated against. Ext.P8 produced along with the writ petition shows that in the case of two other persons who are similarly placed, the HANTEX has taken a decision to pay them arrears consequent W.P.(C) No. 14388/09 5 on grade promotion with effect from the date on which they became entitled to it, namely 1.12.1999. From the pleadings and the materials placed on record, it is evident that as noticed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment there is no consistency in the matter of payment of salary and other service benefits in the HANTEX. While many employees are granted the benefits of grade promotion with effect from the date on which they were given grade promotion, it has been denied in the case of the second petitioner and the other 19 employees named in Ext.P1. They have been given the benefits of arrears consequent on grade promotion only with effect from 1.5.2006. In my considered opinion, the stand taken by the HANTEX in Ext.P5 and in Ext.P4 as regards payment of arrears consequent on grade promotion which is reiterated in the statement filed by the third respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory. The HANTEX, which is a public sector undertaking, cannot discriminate between its employees in the matter of payment of grade promotion benefits. Though respondents 3 and 4 have a case that what was granted to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1998 is not grade promotion, from the materials placed on record and especially having regard to the statements in Ext.P4 and Ext.P5, the said contention cannot be accepted. Ext.P4 in categorical terms states that the second petitioner has been given grade promotion with effect from 1.6.2000 on completion of 10 years of service. I accordingly over rule the said W.P.(C) No. 14388/09 6 contention. In the result, I allow this writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and P5 to the extend they limit payment of arrears consequent on grade promotion only with effect from 1.5.2006. It is declared that the second petitioner and the other persons named in Ext.P1, who have been granted grade promotion with effect from 1.6.2000, will be entitled to payment of arrears consequent on grade promotion with effect from that date. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to compute and pay arrears consequent on the grant of grade promotion to the second petitioner and the other persons named in Ext.P1 with effect from the date on which they were given grade promotion. Orders in that regard shall be issued and arrears disbursed within three months from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Managing Director of HANTEX. I also direct respondents 3 and 4 to take a decision in the matter of payment of second time bound higher grade promotion with effect from 1.6.2008 to the persons named in Ext.P1 except Sri. K.Sivan Nair and Sri. K.Sasidharan Nair, who have retired from service prior to that date. A decision in that regard shall also be taken within the aforesaid period of three months. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 14388/09 7