1998 (4) TMI 534 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987.
2. Merger of three distinct cadres under the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. Impact on promotional opportunities due to the merger.
5. Principles for the integration of services.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987:
The appellant challenged the constitution of a Central Labour Service under the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987, issued by the President under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Article 309 empowers the President to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature. The Supreme Court held that the power to regulate recruitment and conditions of service is wide and includes the power to constitute a new cadre by merging certain existing cadres.

2. Merger of Three Distinct Cadres under the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987:
The appellant argued that the merger of three distinct cadres-Central Industrial Relations Machinery, Labour Officers (Central Pool), and Labour Welfare Commissioners' cadre-treated unequals as equals, adversely affecting their positions and promotional prospects. The Court examined whether the cadres merged by the notification were comparable in terms of qualifications, duties, and salary. It was found that the cadres, though having different duties, operated in the same field of Industrial Relations and Labour Welfare and had similar pay scales and qualifications, justifying the merger.

3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that the merger violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment, respectively. The Court referred to the principles laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, which include considering the nature and duties of posts, powers exercised, qualifications prescribed, and salary of the posts when merging different cadres. The Court found that these principles were adequately considered in the merger, and thus, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16.

4. Impact on Promotional Opportunities Due to the Merger:
The appellant claimed that the merger substantially diminished his chances of promotion. The Court noted that Rule 9 of the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987, laid down the rules of seniority, ensuring that the inter se seniority of officers was determined according to the length of regular continuous service in the grade. The Court observed that although some employees might face adverse effects on their promotional chances, a mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service. The seniority rules were carefully framed, taking all relevant factors into consideration, and the merger did not cause any prejudice to the appellant, who had received promotions post-merger.

5. Principles for the Integration of Services:
The Court reiterated the principles for integration of services as enunciated in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, which include considering the nature and duties of posts, powers exercised, qualifications prescribed, and salary of the posts. The Court emphasized that it is not within the Court's purview to question the correctness of the government's decision on the equation of posts, as long as the principles were properly taken into account. The Court found that the cadre Review Committee had conducted a detailed exercise to ensure no injustice occurred to any of the merging cadres, and the merger was in public interest to provide officers with varied experience in different areas of labour welfare.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no adequate ground for setting aside the Central Labour Service Rules, 1987. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.