Workmen of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited vs The State of Karnataka and The Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition is by the employees union -Workmen of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited represented by its General Secretary directed against the action of the 2nd respondent-Management framing the Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the purpose of filling up of non-officers category. Petitioner Association sees red in the newly framed Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, prescribing higher qualification for promotion even to the existing workmen and have the apprehension that if such qualification as prescribed for induction of persons, who were semi skilled workmen in Wage Group 2 and the prescription of a degree and diploma in the respective discipline will entail a workmen or a person for being eligible to wage group 3 skilled category in the technical department and a degree or diploma with senior shorthand and knowledge of computer operation will make a person eligible for the post of Junior Assistants and Junior Engineers for wage group 3 as prescribed in paragraph 7.3 of the Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

While this is the qualification, which is insisted upon for appointment to the post directly the association nevertheless is apprehending that if workers are to be promoted from wage group 2 to 3 and likewise from wage group 3 to 4, insistence of such higher qualification will virtually deprive them of the promotional opportunity as existing workmen will not be in a position to acquire such additional skills at this stage of their career. Many of them may not have completed even SSLC at the time of joining service and prescription of higher or additional qualification mid way is virtually a hurdle for their promotional opportunities.

It is in this background, the association has presented this writ petition seeking to get over the hurdle that they have to possess the required qualification which is the criteria of the newly framed Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules by challenging the very validity of this rules in par by praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ or a direction to hold that the. Circular dated 10.07.2012 in respect of Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Officers and Employees, now framed by the management, copy produced at Annexure C, insofar as the workmen category are concerned and also employment notification Annexure E dated 16.10.2012, insofar as the workmen category is concerned is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, calls for action on the part of the petitioner.

Apart from framing of the Rules the issue of the notification as per Annexure-E dated 16.10.2012 inviting applications from eligible persons for filling up various back-log vacancies that existed in the organization and also the back-log vacancies of posts in respect of reserved category have not been filled up for years and therefore, putting some pressure on the management, applications had been called for and in this notification, the requisite qualification as prescribed now in the newly formed Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules having been indicated which has put the petitioners on alert and the apprehension as noticed earlier.

Notice had been issued to the respondent management. The Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules having been approved by the Government, they also figure as party respondent to this proceedings. Respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned HCGP and Respondent No. 2 -Management is represented by Mr. Muralidhar, learned counsel.

Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. It is inter alia contended that framing of the rules was insisted upon due to the directions given by this court in W.A. No. 364/2008 dated 14.12.2009; that the prescription of commensurate qualification was very necessary having regard to the advancement in technological field that unless a person with requisite qualification would have familiarity to operate the present generation machines, which are all guided and equipped with electronic control systems otherwise a person, who is recruited will not be in a position or useful for remaining in the association and therefore, commensurate qualification has been prescribed and the union cannot take exception to such prescription of qualification, which is relevant and needed for the posts to be filled up. It is also averred that the Rules have been in fact framed taking into confidence representatives of the trade unions in the industry, particularly, when the 2nd respondent has agreed that the writ petitioner is not any recognized organization but is represented in the capacity of the workmen in the organization, but are espousing the cause on their own; that the other trade unions had in fact agreed for framing of such rules and may be for some other purpose, the writ petition is filed etc., and the writ petition is devoid of any merits and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs etc.

The matter was heard for quite some time. Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. It appears that the petitioners'' Union were these Group of employees, who are in no way affected by the newly framed rules, as it was the stand of the respondent-management that insofar as the existing workmen were concerned their promotional opportunities within the ''workmen category'' is concerned it is not necessary to effect by the prescription of qualification as indicated in the rules; that it is only for those, who are being appointed under the ''staff category'', the qualifications as prescribed under the Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the posts in wage group 4 and will be insisted that within the wage groups 1 to 4 and as is applicable to ''workmen category'' these additional qualifications are not insisted for horizontal promotions within the ''workmen category'', but it is only when the workmen wants to shift to ''staff category'' the commensurate educational qualification is being insisted, therefore, petitioners really do not have any grievance at all.

Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel was nevertheless not satisfied and had insisted that the management should clarify this position as in the statement of objections filed, this position has not been made clear and it was not forthcoming and if such assurance is given to the workmen in the sense for their promotional opportunity within the ''workmen category'' is not being in any way affected, because of the prescription of the qualification as per the Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, then the petitioners will be content and this point is clarified by Mr. Muralidhar, who confirms the same.

An affidavit is placed before the court today sworn to by Mr. P. Ravi, Deputy General Manager (HRD) of the respondent management and it is made very clear in this affidavit that the insistence for possessing or acquiring the qualification as per the newly framed Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the posts in and above wage group 4 is only in respect of such of those persons, who aspire to change over to ''staff category'' and not to those who remain within the ''workmen category'' which is upto wage groups 1 to 6 and as indicated in Rule 19 of the rules which is as under:-

19.0 PROMOTION AGAINST VACANCY:-

19.1 Various posts in the following wage Groups will be filled up by considering promotion of employees, who possess requisite qualification and experience through internal selection subject to completion of five years service in the previous grade.

Mr. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent points out that up to the post of a ''chargemen'' within the ''workmen category'' prescribed qualification is not insisted and it is only when the persons aspire to change over to ''staff category'' commensurate qualification is being insisted and not otherwise.

An examination of the Rules 19 and 19.1 and the present elucidation of the required qualification makes it very clear that promotional opportunity to a workman from wage group 2 to 3 and likewise wage group 3 to 4 is not in any way affected so long as the persons remain in the ''workers category, it is only when a worker wants to shift over to the post in ''staff category'', the insistence on the acquisition or possessing the qualification that a qualification made for insisting on the qualification not on the existing workers even for promotion amongst the existing workers as a reasonable qualification and this category of workers, who wants to get shifted to the ''staff category'' form a separate and distinct group of persons and therefore, for getting the benefit of being shifted to the ''staff category'', if the prescribed qualification is insisted, I do not find any discrimination act or arbitrary act under the Rules making it necessary for the persons to possess the prescribed qualification. Insofar as the workmen remains in ''workers category'' the promotions will be right up to post of ''chargemen'' in wage group 6.

It is thereafter time bound advancements and not any further promotions are accorded.

I do not find any irrationality in such rule and even otherwise interest of the workman for promotion within the workman category having been sufficiently protected, as the rule does not in any way affect their interest, there is no ground to declare the rule as unconstitutional, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

With this clarification made on the part of the Management, I do not find any lacuna in the rule and therefore subject to the clarification and observations made above, this writ petition is dismissed. IA No. 1/2013 for vacating stay is disposed of accordingly.