Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SC/ST association in Indian Institute Of Science Sc/St ... vs Indian Institute Of Science And Anr. on 7 June, 2004Matching Fragments
5. The employees of the Institute belong to general category resorted to agitations during December 1991 for rectification of the distortions resulted from the three years evaluation made in the case of SC/ST employees from 1-7-1983. In that behalf, a settlement was reached between the Institute and the Employees Association in December 1991, involving advancing one appropriate earlier evaluation of general category employees by 2/3 years and virtually bringing the general category of employees on par with SC/ST employees and ensuring that in any given cadre, a junior employee will not draw a higher salary than a senior employee. Aggrieved by the said settlement, the SC/ST employees commenced agitations for continuation of the earlier arrangement providing for evaluation at the end of three years for SC/ST employees and at the end of five years for other employees. As the Institute did not agree for the said request, and certain other claims, the SC/ST Welfare Association gave a representation dated 2-1-1996 to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ('Commission' for short). The SC/ST Welfare Association also gave notice to the Institute threatening that its President and Secretary will go on a Fast Unto Death with effect from 12-6-1996, if its demands were not met. The Director of the Institute therefore sent a communication dated 11-6-1996 to the Commission to intervene in the matter and instruct the SC/ST Welfare Association to call off the agitation. In pursuance of it, representations of the Institute and the SC/ST Welfare Association met the officers of the Commission and held discussion on 3-7-1996.
As a consequence, both the writ petitions were allowed in part and the resolution dated 28-12-1996 of the Institute was held to be constitutionally invalid and accordingly quashed.
11. Feeling aggrieved, the SC/ST Welfare Association has filed these appeals. According to them, Resolution No. XII, dated 28-12-1996 extending the concession of one year evaluation to SC/ST employees ought to have been upheld except Clauses (v) and (vi) thereof which extends some consequential benefit to general category employees. The appellant (SC/ST Welfare Association) has advanced the following contentions:
(emphasis supplied)
15. Both the appellant and the Institute had contended before the learned Single Judge that grant or relaxation of one year in the evaluation period for CA Scheme did not relate to promotion, but only amounted to extension of a monetary benefit. We may refer to the pleadings briefly. In para 4 of its petition (in W.P. No. 3349 of 1997) the SC/ST Welfare Association has stated that CA Scheme involves grant of higher scale of pay just to give monetary benefit without bringing about any change in designation. The SC/ST Welfare Association in its statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 24538 of 1996 contended that the very object of introducing the CA Scheme is to extend the higher pay scales/monetary benefits without any promotion (vide para 1); and evaluation under the CA Scheme was only an extension of financial benefits (vide para 8). The Institute also, in its statement of objections and additional statements of objections filed in both writ petitions, stated and reiterated that the CA Scheme involving evaluation is intended only to give monetary benefit in higher scales of pay, without promotion, without change in designation, and without effecting seniority in their respective cadre. The learned Single Judge therefore proceeded on the basis that the Scheme related to grant of monetary benefit unconnected with promotion. He did not therefore examine the validity of the resolution dated 28-12-1996 with reference to Article 16(4-A).
30. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Employees Association relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ml India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees and Ors. Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., wherein it is held that while the Commission has only power to investigate into the matter and enquire into the complaints; and for such purposes, it has the procedural powers of a Civil Court, but has no power to issue any adjudicatory orders.
31. It may not be necessary to examine in this case, the question whether any 'decision' or 'direction' issued by the Commission is binding on the Institute. We have already referred to the background in which the matter was considered by the Commission. The SC/ST Welfare Association gave a complaint to the Commission on 2-1-1996. The Institute also wrote to the Commission on 11-6-1996 seeking its intervention to ensure that SC/ST Welfare Association does not indulge in any agitation. The Commission gave a report on the basis of discussions held on 3-7-1996. A reading of the report makes it clear that it does not contain any direction but only contains recommendations in the form of opinion of the Commission. Therefore, if cannot be said that the report or the findings contained therein are binding on the Institute. Secondly, having regard to the fact that the correctness/validity of the decision/recommendation of the Commission has been examined in a writ proceedings and held to be incorrect and unconstitutional, the question whether it is 'binding' or not does not survive for consideration.