Gyana Ranjan Panda
25 October 2012 at 17:30
Respected Sir, Please refer the below mentioned court verdicts, kindly suggest whether pay protection will be applicable in my case on joining FCI as a AG-III and if it is not applied by FCI in my case, then will I be able to get an favorable judgement from a court of law for fixation of my pay by quoting the below cases:
A)Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Singh vs The Food Corporation Of India, ... on 5 February, 2003
Author: M S Gill
Bench: M S Gill
JUDGMENT
Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant him benefit of service rendered by him in the military, towards seniority and to promote him in Class III service against the post reserved for Class IV employees.
2. The petitioner has averred that he served in the military from 24.5.1967 to 31.5.1977. He passed Matriculation Examination in the year 1959 i.e. before he joined military service. After his retirement, he joined the service of respondents as a Watchman on 25.10.1977. He is still working as a Watchman.
3. The petitioner has further averred that the instructions issued by the Government of India have been adopted by the Food Corporation of India. These instructions relate to the benefits to be given to the ex-servicemen towards seniority, fixation of pay etc. The respondents have issued instructions that 30% posts in Class III Service will be filled by promotion from amongst Class IV employees who are Matriculates.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that Class IV employees who had done Matriculation later than the petitioner, though they had joined the service of the respondents before the petitioner, were promoted. Since they had not done Matriculation, they could not have been given promotion from Class IV to Class III. As the petitioner was a Matriculate before he joined military, he, thus, was entitled to get his promotion before the other employees.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the pay of the petitioner has been fixed and his military service from 24.5.1967 to 31.5.1977 has been taken into consideration. He does not have any grievance on this count. The only grievance which the petitioner has now, is that he should have been promoted before some other employees who had done Matriculation later, but though they had joined service of the respondents before the petitioner had joined...........
B) Food Corporation Of India vs Laxmi Narain on 27 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (58) DRJ 2
Author: D Bhandari
Bench: D Bhandari, M A Khan
ORDER
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of aforementioned appeals arising out of the judgment dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The controversy involved in all these appeals is of identical nature. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this judgment.
2. The relevant facts which are necessary to decide these appeals are as under:-
3. The respondents in the aforesaid LPAs are ex-servicemen. After completing their tenure, they were released from service and, thereafter, they were re-employed by the Food Corporation of India (for short hereinafter referred to as FCI). The FCI is a body created under a statute, namely, the Food Corporation Act, 1964 and the service under the FCI is governed by the Staff Regulations and other policy decisions framed by the FCI.
4. Rule 85 of the Staff Regulations lays down that the pay of such employees shall be regulated in accordance with the principle applicable to similar appointments in the civil departments of the Central Government. It was submitted by Mr. Ajit Pudussery, learned counsel for the FCI, that there is no provision in the rules or regulations for grant of seniority for re-employed personnel in category III/IV posts on the basis of service rendered by them prior to their employment in the FCI.
5. The respondents are working in the category III post in the FCI. The respondents after re-employment made representations that their seniority may be fixed taking into account the military service rendered by them. The FCI rejected their representations. Thereafter, the respondents filed writ petitions before this Court. The writ petitions were allowed on the strength of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 7695 of 1976 K.P. Thomas vs. Union of India on 31.1.1977.
6. The appellant FCI is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge and preferred these appeals against the said judgment.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the circulars issued by the Government of India would have application in the matter of fixation of seniority of re-employed by the FCI. Learned Single Judge relied on circular dated 4.12.1959. The said circular reads as under:-
No.13034/D(Appts)
Government of India
Ministry of defense
New Delhi, 4.12.1959
MEMORANDUM
Subject : Seniority.
In amplification of the provisions of Army Instructions 241/50 and corresponding orders decided in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs that in determining the seniority of Govt. servants on appointment in civil posts, benefits of all previous service rendered in the same or equivalent posts (including service rendered in the same or equivalent posts including service rendered in combatant capacity) should be given and for this purpose the post should be treated as equivalent if the nature and duties attached to them are similar, irrespective of the rate of pay drawn in the previous posts.
sd/-
Brij Raj Bahadur
Under Secretary to the Govt, of India
8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid circular cannot be made applicable to the respondents. This circular deals with the fixation of pay and seniority of re-employed persons to "civil posts' and the same cannot be applied where re-employment is not to the "civil posts". It was also urged that the conditions of service being entirely different between the Government and the FCI, the benefits granted to the holders of "civil posts" in the Government cannot by analogy be granted to the employees of FCI.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Section 12(3) of Food Corporation Act,1964. The said Section 12(3) reads as under:-
"(3) The methods of appointment, the conditions of service and the scales of pay of the officers and other employees of the Corporation shall -
(a) as respects the Secretary, be such as may be prescribed;
(b) as respects the other officers and employees, be such as may be determined by regulations made by the Corporation under this Act."
10. It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in view of the statutory prescription regarding the conditions of service and scale of pay the same has to be determined through regulations made by the FCI. The respondents cannot be granted benefit by following the circular issued by the Government of India. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that the conditions of service being totally different in the Government and the Corporation, no benefit other than what has been specifically sanctioned by the FCI, can be granted to its employees.
11. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Regulation 85 of the Staff Regulations clearly prescribes the method for pay fixation on re-employment which benefit was given by the FCI to the respondents on their re-employment. Since the benefit of fixation of pay is prescribed under the rules but any other benefit like seniority on re-employment cannot be given because the same has specifically not been provided under the rules..............
shrivatsa
10 October 2012 at 21:34
Hi,
I need clarifications regarding PF wages in case of an employee drawing basic salary more than Rs. 6500/- pm.
I have given two type of calculating PF Wages ina particular month.
In Method 1 – PF wages is calculated pro rata basis on actual basic, but, restricted to Rs. 6500/- pm, maximum.
But, in Method 2, PF wages calculated keeping wage ceiling i.e., Rs. 6500/- as fixed PF wages. Earned PF wages in that particular month will get reduced less than Rs. 6500/- in case employee is absent for even a single day.
In my opinion, PF wage must be the actual wage earned but, restricted to a maximum of Rs. 6500/- pm. In section 29(1) of Chapter V of EPF Scheme, 1952, its mentioned that PF contributions will be paid on wages ‘PAYABLE’ to an employee. In section 29(3) of Chapter V of EPF Scheme, 1952, its mentioned that PF contribution calculations must be done on PF wages actually drawn in that particular month.
In the above context, Method 1 is the correct way of calculating PF contribution in case of an employee drawing Basic wages more than Rs. 6500/- pm.
Pl provide your point of view in this regard.
Parmanand Masani
08 August 2012 at 15:32
We are setting up a power plant in gondia district (m.s.)and applied for factory license. We would like know the applicability of MLWF act to our establishment.
SHANMUGARAJ
31 July 2012 at 18:44
dear sir/madam
any statuary provision for quantification of hazardous chemical industry (explosive) supervisor please note
Ankarsh Rattan
31 July 2012 at 10:03
In a Vocational Trainin Centre running by a Govt deptt, they employ some employees on contract for 1 year. But as per (Standard Operating Procedure)SOP of that Vocational Training Centre, an employee should be employed for Min 3 years on contract & max 5 years. The administration can't renew the contract, but every year they appoint new incumbents after lapse of 1 year contract. They signed a contarct for only 1 year, without knowledge of the employees who are appointed that SOP says contrsct should be on Min 1 year. Is the adminisration go againt the SOP, what we have to do againt this?
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Wags to sailing officers onboard the sci lyd, ships
Dear Sirs,
Sub : Wages of Sailing staff Officers onboard The Shipping Corpn Of India Ltd,. ships.
I am employed with The Shipping Corporation Of India Ltd. (The SCI LTD), Mumbai which is a Public Limited Company. My job involves sailing onboard the ships. The wages to all the Officers onboard including. is paid on the basis of Agreement settled between The MUI (Maritime Union Of India - on Officers behalf) & The INSA (Indian National Ship Owners' Association - On behalf of the Owners). Ideally these agreements are revised every two years. Since almost a decade this agreement is signed for uncertain periods but with the break up of wages for 2 years (i.e agreement for 4 years is signed once with two sets of wage schedules). Understand from Officers of Private sector shipping companies that their company pays more than the agreement wages to Top Four ranks of the Officers onboard. This system was not followed in The SCI even when the company was running short of Officers in their fleet. The scenario has changed since Jan'2008. Even The SCI is following private company tactics (Understand that this is done to stop their Officers leaving and joining lucrative offers of the private and foreing players and run the ship smoothly). Unfortunately The SCI is also paying only the select few Ranks, the higher wages by making them to come on contractual basis. Even though it is on contractual basis, the payment is very high, more than double of what these Ranks would have got if they had opted for agreement wages. Remaining ranks, which are not important (according to the safe manning document issued by The Directorate General Of Shipping), are not offered higher wages on contractual basis. Moreover these Ranks are at the risk of loosing their job if the Company decides to retrench them. This is what is mentioned in one of the clauses of the agreement, where in it has been agreed that the company can retrench any Officer it it feels his servce is in excess to the company. Though we Officers are permanently employed with The SCI from the beginning, they call us the bonafied employees of the The SCI and not permanent employees of The SCI in all the documents wherever ou status with the company is required to be mentioned.
My querries are:-
1) What is the difference between Bonafied Employee and Permanent employee?
2) Can a PSU like The SCI, Offer/pay higher contractual wages to select few Officers of its choice and pay others only the agreement wages?
3) If answer to 2nd querry is No.. then can we demand and claim higher wages and arrears of it from the day of implementation (Jan'2008).
4) Is the clause valid, which gives rights to the Owners to retrench its Officers by paying retrenchment allowance (since Owners only deciding on retrenchment and Union is agreeing and signing on the clause, one can imagine what will be the state of retrenchment allowance? IS THERE ANY GUIDELINE IN THIS REGARDS PLEASE?
5) Is there any guidelines for deciding BASIC wages of employees in the agreement between the Union and the Management? I am asking you this because there are certain Officer Ranks whose last BASIC (Around 30th year or so) does not equal to even first Basic (1st year Basic in higher Rank) of the higher Rank.
FYI SAFE MANNING DOCUMENT is certified and issued by The D.G.Shipping which states the minimum Officers and crew to be present onboard. Practically majority of ships carry more than the safe manning limits. I have tried to put forward the scenario to the best of my ability. Kind advice and guidance from your end would be highly appreciated. Many of the Officers onboard are unhappy with the step motherly treatment meeted out to them but are not raising their voice due to the fear of loosing their jobs.
Awaiting yours,