Case: Board Of Directors Thro C.M.D.(Nac Ltd.) Vs. Hrusikesh Senapati

The respondents herein filed writ petitions OJC No. 9368 of 1995 and OJC No. 9218 of 1996 challenging the introduction ofO grade in the executive cadre as promotional avenue for the channel of supervisors inter alia inS3cadre on the ground that it deprived the employees of their legitimate promotional avenue1 in executive cadre. The respondents also prayed for quashing the circular No. 64 dated 29.6.1995 contending that it was issued without the decision of the Board of Directors as to the introduction of new induction pointO grade in the executive cadre2. The writ petitions were resisted by the appellants stating that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Executives, 1984 (for short `the 1984 Rules) were applicable only to executives and not for the employees in thee cadres; scheme for promotion of thes to executive cadre was separate and independent; the impugned circular No. 64 noted that over the years, executive cadre was stabilised with consequent reduction in the requirement of1 level officers. Hence, it had become necessary to implement the said circular to provide promotional avenues to the employees working at supervisory level in theS3grade for selection against the executive posts atO level subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed. A settlement under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer between the appellant company and nine differente employees unions representing substantial majority of them. In the said binding settlement it is specifically stipulated that the employees in the revised grades3 (corresponding toS3level) would continue to be eligible for internal selection for posts atO level according to the prescribed conditions3. The High Court disposed of the writ petition OJC No. 9368 of 1995 by a short order without dealing with various contentions raised by the appellants directing "that the scheme contained in5 can only remain in force if any part or portion thereof which is at variance with the conditions contained in1 cannot have any legal effect prejudicing the rights of the petitioner or similarly situated persons in the matter of promotion and other incidental aspects." OJC No. 9218 of 1996 was disposed of following the order made in OJC No. 9368 of 1995. Hence these two appeals by the appellant company.

Reasoning:
We are told number of employees frome cadre had already been promoted toO level of executive cadre. At any rate the respondents were unable to say as to how they were prejudiced by creation ofO level in the executive cadreto provideone more promotional opportunity in the circumstances already stated above. The appellants also brought to our notice that NALCO Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Executives, 1997 (Annexure9 filed in this Court) have come into force superseding the 1984 Rules. Rule 16.1 of the 1997 Rules says that all executive posts in the Company shall be classified in different grades includingO level. Thus, having regard to all the aspects we find it difficult to sustain the impugned orders passed by the High Court.