http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C.T. DIGHE AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1981

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1699            1982 SCR  (1) 107  1981 SCC  (3) 545        1981 SCALE  (3)1105  CITATOR INFO :  R          1986 SC1830  (39)

ACT:      Labour dispute-Changes  made by  the  employer  in  the existing scheme  of  promotion  during  the  pendency  of  a reference  before   the  Tribunal-Whether   such  a   change contravened the  provisions of  section 33  (1) (a)  of  the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 giving rise to complaint will depend on  the nexus  of the  changes made and the nature of the reference pending before the Tribunal.

HEADNOTE:      On May  13, 1972  the Reserve  Bank  of  India,  Bombay issued Administration  Circular No.  8 introducing a revised scheme for promotion of employees as staff officers Grade A. Feeling that the aforesaid Circular adversely affected them, the stenographers  filed  a  writ  petition  in  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging its validity, Their grievance was that by the said circular No. 8 they were placed en-bloc below the  clerks which  made  their  chances  of  promotion illusory. On  March 5,  1973 the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court dismissed   the    writ   petition,    but   made    certain recommendations to  avoid  frustration  and  dissatisfaction among the  stenographers. In  1973 charters  of demands were submitted to  the Reserve  Bank of  India by  the employees’ associations.  On   January  23,   1976  the   Bank   issued Administration Circular  No. 5  modifying Circular  No. 8 to remedy the  alleged adverse effect suffered by stenographers as a result of Circular No. 8.      On June 16, 1979, the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred  by section  7B of  the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  constituted a  National Industrial  Tribunal with head-quarters at  Bombay and referred to it for adjudication an industrial  dispute existing  between the Reserve Bank of India and  their Class III workmen. The dispute as described in the  Schedule  to  the  order  of  reference  related  to "specific matters..  ......    ....pertaining  to  Class-III workmen" enumerated  in the Schedule. The Schedule listed 35 matters in  all, item  No.  12  of  which  is  described  as "promotion".  During  the  pendency  of  the  reference,  on October  10,   1979  the   Reserve  Bank   of  India  issued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

Administration Circular  No. 6 introducing certain change in the scheme  of promotion  set  out  in  circular  No.  8  by relaxing certain  conditions of eligibility for the personal assistants, stenographers,  tellers and  the clerical staff. Feeling aggrieved, some clerks (Grade I) who were empanelled for promotion  to the  post of  Staff Officer  Grade A after passing the  test, filed  two complaints before the National Tribunal under  section 33A  of the  Industrial Dispute  Act alleging (i)  that as  a result  of Circular  No. 6 many who could not  have been  considered for promotion in preference to the  complainants had Circular No. 8 been in force, would now be entitled to a higher preference, 108 and (ii)  that the  alterations made  during the pendency of the reference  before  the  National  Tribunal  amounted  to changing their  conditions of  service to their prejudice in violation of  section 33  (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as their chances of promotion would recede. The National Tribunal  by its  award  dated  September  3,  1980 disposed of  these two  complaints holding  that the Reserve Bank  of   India  had   changed  to  the  prejudice  of  the complainants their  conditions of  service by  modifying the existing scheme  of  promotion  during  the  pendency  of  a reference before  the Tribunal  and thereby  contravened the provisions of  section 33  (1) (a).  Hence  the  appeals  by special leave.      Allowing the appeals and dismissing the complaints, the Court ^      HELD: 1:  1. The order of reference did not require the Tribunal to  adjudicate on  all possible matters relating to promotion. The  Tribunal should have defined the area of the dispute referred to it for adjudication before proceeding to consider whether  the promotional scheme set out in Circular No. 6  could be said to be connected with that dispute. [117 G-H]      1 : 2. Item No. 12 of the Schedule annexed to the order of reference  is described  as "promotion". Demand No. 19 in the Charter  of Demands  presented by  the All India Reserve Bank Employees  Association mentions  "promotional avenues", but  the  matters  specified  under  the  head  "promotional avenues" relate  to the  creation of  more promotional posts and the  upgrading of  certain posts. Demand No. 19 does not thus relate  to the  promotional scheme  in question. Demand No. 27  of the Charter of Demands submitted by the All India Reserve  Bank   Workers   Organisation   is   described   as "promotional policy"  and all that is said in the charter of demands  is  that  the  matters  "should  be  discussed  and finalised on  the  basis  of  prerequisites  of  promotional policy submitted  in 1969".  Demand No. 27 could, therefore, have no  connection with  the promotional  scheme set out in Circular No. 6 issued in 1979. [116 C-E]      1: 3.  Under section  10 (1A)  the  Central  Government could refer  to the  National Tribunal  an  existing  or  an apprehended dispute;  the order  or reference  in this  case shows  that  it  was  not  an  apprehended  dispute  but  an industrial dispute  that "exists  between the  employers  in relation to  the Reserve  Bank of  India and their class III workmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule" annexed to  the order which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. As  section 10 (1A) expressly says, any matter appearing to  be connected  or relevant  to the  existing or apprehended dispute  can also  be referred  to the  National Tribunal  for  adjudication,  but  obviously  unless  it  is determined what  the dispute  was that has been referred for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

adjudication, it is not possible to say whether a particular matter is connected with it. [117 C-E]      2: 1.  What  circular  No.  6  did  was  to  relax  for stenographers and  personal assistants  the conditions  they had to  satisfy to  be able  to sit  for the  test. It  they passed the  test, they  would get  into the panel along with employees belonging  to the  clerical  cadre  who  also  had passed the  test. Vacancies  in the  posts of  staff officer Grade A  are filled  by recruiting employees from the panel. The panel  is a permanent one. Alterations of the conditions of  the  eligibility  governing  employees  belonging  to  a particular cadre  can amount  to changing  the conditions of service of  employees who  belonged another  cadre, assuming for the present 109 that the  said conditions  were conditions  of service.  The changes introduced  in  respect  of  the  stenographers  and personal assistants  may have  an impact  on the promotional prospects of employees from another cadre who are already in the panel or even of those who were expecting to be included in the  panel, but  this would  not amount to changing their conditions of  service. The  conditions  of  service  of  an employee cannot  include an  implied right  to  prevent  the employer from  altering the  conditions of  service of other employees.  In   a  given   case  such   alteration  may  be inequitable, and  a way  may  be  found  in  the  Industrial Disputes Act  to redress  the  grievance  of  the  employees affected thereby. [118 B-F]      2: 2.  It was  competent for  the Bank  to introduce  a combined  promotional   scheme  for   the  clerical   staff, stenographers, and  personal assistants and the Bank was not bound to  wait until all employees belonging to the clerical cadre whose  names were  already in  the panel when Circular No. 6  was introduced  had been  promoted as  staff officers Grade A.  There was no such assurance given by the Bank when it introduced  Circular No.  8. The  Bank did  not undertake that it  would not take any step to change the conditions of the stenographers  and the personal assistants were required to satisfy  to be  able to  appear in the test until all the clerks already  empanelled were  promoted.  Circular  No.  6 cannot therefore  be assailed  on the  ground  that  it  was introduced when  some employees  belonging to  the  clerical grade whose  names were  already in the panel remained to be promoted. [121 B-E]      Being in  the panel  in any  particular year  does  not ensure a  fixed place  in the panel for an employee until he is promoted.  The right  the complainants now claim is based on  the   change  in   the  conditions  of  service  of  the stenographers made to their detriment earlier. [121 E-F]      Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal [1977] 1 SCR 377, followed.      3. It  is well  settled that  a rule  which affects the promotion of  a person  relates to  his condition of service but this  is not  so if  what is  affected is  a  chance  of promotion  only.   Though  a  right  to  be  considered  for promotion  is  a  condition  of  service,  mere  chances  of promotion are  not and  that a  rule  which  merely  affects chances  of  promotion  cannot  be  regarded  as  varying  a condition of service. [121 G-H, 122 A, C-D]      The fact  that as  a result  of  the  changes  made  by Circular No.  6 the  complainants lost  a few  places in the panel affects  their chances  of promotion but not the right to be  considered for promotion. That being so, it cannot be said that  the alterations  made by Circular No. 6 amount to changing the  conditions of service of the complainants; the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

grievance made by the complainants does not therefore appear to have any basis. [122 G-H, 123 A-B]      Mohd. Shujat  Ali and  others etc.  v. Union of India & Ors. etc.,  [1975] 1  SCR  449;  State  of  Mysore  v.  G.B. Purohit, C.A.  2281 of  1965  decided  on  25-1-1967  (S.C.) unreported, applied.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No. 2815 & 2816 of 1980. 110      Appeals by  special leave  from the Award dated the 3rd September, 1980  of  the  National  Industrial  Tribunal  at Bombay in  Complaint No. NTB 2 and NTB 3 of 1980 arising out of Reference No. NTB 1 of 1979.                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2607 of 1980      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Award dated the 3rd Sept. 1980  passed  by  the  National  Industrial  Tribunal, Bombay in Complaints Nos. NTB 2 & 3 of 1980 in Reference No. NTB 1 of 1979.                             AND                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3150 of 1980      Appeal by  Special  leave  from  the  Award  dated  3rd September, 1980  passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Complaints Nos. NTB 2 & 3 of 1980 in Reference No. NTB 1 of 1979.      F.S. Nariman  R.A. Shroff,  H.S. Parihar and Shradul S. Shroff, for  the Appellant in CAS 2815-16/80, for Respondent No. 2 in CA. 2607/80 & for Respondent No. 1 in C.A. 3150/80.      C. N.  Murthy and  P. P. Mittal for Respondent No. 1 in CA. 2815-16/80.      M.K. Ramamurthy, P.S. Khera and S.K. Dawar, for RR 2-70 in CAS. 2815-16/80, for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2607/80 & for Respondent Nos. 3 & 40-67 in CA. 3150/80.      K.K. Venugopal,  C.N. Murthy  and P.P.  Mittal 1980 for the Appellants.      A.K. Sen,  A.K. Gupta,  Brij Bhushan, N.P. Mahendra and Miss Renu Gupta, for the Appellants in CA. 3150/80.      S.K. Bisaria for RR. 2-4 and 6-39 in CA. 3150/80.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GUPTA, J.  These are four appeals by special leave from an Award  of the  National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, made on September  3, 1980  disposing  of  two  complaints  under section 33-A  of the  Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 holding that the employer, 111 Reserve Bank  of India,  Bombay had changed to the prejudice of the complainants their conditions of service by modifying the existing  scheme of  promotion during  the pendency of a reference before  the Tribunal  and had  thereby contravened the provisions  of section  33 (1)  (a) of  the  Act.  Civil Appeals 2815  and 2816  of 1980  have been  preferred by the Reserve Bank  of India, Bombay. In civil appeal 2607 of 1980 the appellants are some of the stenographers employed in the Bombay office  of  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India.  The  four appellants in  civil appeal  3150 of 1980 are also employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, one of whom is a clerk grade I  and  the  other  three  are  officiating  as  staff officers grade  A. How  the appellants in Civil Appeals 2607 and 3150  are affected  by the  Award will  appear from  the facts stated below.      The facts leading to the making of the complaints under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

section 33-A are as follows. On June 16, 1979 the Government of  India,   Ministry  of  Labour,  in  exercise  of  powers conferred by section 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with headquarters at Bombay  and referred to it for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the Reserve Bank of India and their class III  workmen. The dispute as described in the schedule to the  order of  reference  related  to  "specific  matters pertaining to class III workmen" enumerated in the schedule. The schedule  listed 35 matters in all, item No. 12 of which is described as ’Promotion’.      On May  13,  1972  appellant  Reserve  Bank  of  India, Bombay, had issued Administration Circular No. 8 introducing a  revised  scheme  for  promotion  of  employees  as  Staff Officers Grade  A. This  Circular  No.  8  prescribed  as  a condition for  promotion passing  a test consisting of three papers on the following subjects: noting, drafting, precis & essay writing,  (ii) Reserve  Bank of  India Act,  and (iii) functions  and   working  of  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India. Candidates with  less than  15 years’  service in  class III cadre at  the time of the test and who had not passed in the subjects ’Practice and Law of Banking’ and ’Book-keeping and Accounts’ in  Part I of the Institute of Bankers Examination were to  appear and  pass in an extra paper divided into two parts on  the aforesaid  two subjects.  Candidates  who  had passed in  either or  both these  subjects in  part I of the Institute  of   Bankers  Examination   were  exempted   from appearing in  the corresponding  part or  both parts of this paper. The circular further provided that an estimate of the vacancies anticipated  to occur  in  each  office  during  a ’panel year’ i. e. from September 1 to 112 August 31, was to be declared by the Bank in advance and the number of  candidates in  that office  to be  called for the test to  fill the vacancies in that office was not to exceed twice the number of such vacancies. A candidate who had been unsuccessful in  more than  one test  was to be treated as a repeater and the number of such repeaters sitting for a test would be  in addition to the aforesaid number of candidates. An employee  in the substantive rank of teller, stenographer grade II,  stenographer grade  I or  personal assistant  was eligible to  appear in the test under this circular provided he had put in a minimum period of 15 years’ service in class III cadre. A further condition relating to these three types of   employees,    tellers,   stenographers   and   personal assistants, was  that they  could be called to appear in the test only  if a  clerical candidate  of the  same length  of service found  a  place  within  twice  the  number  in  the combined seniority  list. The  said three types of employees were required  to pass  both parts I and II of the Institute of Bankers examination, or if they were graduates, in part I only. Those  of them  who would  pass the  test were  to  be posted on  the clerical  desk for  one  year  for  acquiring experience and  thereafter they  were to  be absorbed in the next  list  to  be  prepared  on  the  result  of  the  test succeeding the  one in  which they  had passed. They were to rank in  seniority below the juniormost successful candidate in the  test in  which they qualified. A further requirement was that  the stenographers  and personal  assistants should have worked for at least 5 years as such; this condition was thought necessary  because it was possible that some of them may have been employed as typists for some time.      Feeling that  the aforesaid  circular No.  8  adversely affected them,  the Stenographers  filed a  writ petition in the Andhra  Pradesh High  Court challenging  the validity of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

the circular.  The main grievance seems to have been that by the said  Circular No.  8 they were placed en bloc below the clerks which  made the  chances of  promotion so far as they were concerned  illusory.  The  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:           ".....the clerks  and the  stenographers who  have      passed at  the qualifying  written examination  do  not      acquire any right to promotion by merely being put in a      panel. As  observed by  the Supreme  Court in  the case      cited in  Gangaram v.  Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C.      2178,  the   effect  of   passing  at   the  qualifying      examination is only 113      to remove  a hurdle in their way for further promotions      to the posts of staff officers, grade II. In the matter      of actual  promotion there  is nothing  illegal in  the      department promoting the clerks as a group in the first      instance  and   postponing  the   promotions   of   the      stenographers to  a  later  stage.....It  is  urged  on      behalf of  the petitioners  that previous  to  the  new      scheme, the stenographers were placed at the top of the      clerks en  bloc and  that they have now been brought to      the bottom.           This argument  is based  upon a misconception that      the panel  creates any rights. Hence nothing turns upon      the place fixed in the panel". The High  Court however  made  certain  recommendations  "to avoid   frustration    and   dissatisfaction    among    the stenographers". It  was suggested that "the Reserve Bank may frame suitable  rules for  fixing the  seniority  among  the staff officers,  grade II,  on some  rational and  equitable principles, i.e.,  by length of service or marks obtained at the qualifying examination or by adopting a reasonable ratio between the  two classes,  so that  the chances  of  further promotions for  the stenographers may not be illusory". This judgment was  delivered on  March 5,1973.  In the  months of March and  November, 1973  charters of demand were submitted respectively  by   the  All   India  Reserve   Bank  Workers Organisation  and  the  All  India  Reserve  Bank  Employees Association. The  latter Association  is the  one  which  is recognised  by   the  Bank.   On   January   23,   1976   by Administration Circular No. 5 the Bank modified Circular No. 8 to  remedy the  alleged adverse  effect  suffered  by  the stenographers as  a result  of Circular  No. 8.  On June 16, 1979 the  order referring to the National Tribunal at Bombay the dispute  between the  Bank and the class III workmen was made. The All India Reserve Bank Employees Association filed a writ  petition in  the Calcutta  High Court  in July  1979 challenging this  order of  reference.  The  High  Court  at Calcutta  issued  an  injunction  restraining  the  National Tribunal from  adjudicating on  the reference until the writ petition  was  disposed  of.  A  settlement  was  thereafter reached between  the Bank  and the  All India  Reserve  Bank Employees Association  and the  injunction was  vacated.  On November 21,  1979 the  Bank and  the Association applied to the Tribunal jointly for making an award on the basis of the settlement.      In the  meantime on  October,  10,  1979  the  impugned Circular No.  6  was  issued.  The  following  changes  were introduced by Circular 114 No. 6  in the  scheme of promotion set out in Circular No. 8 relating to  personal assistants, stenographers, tellers and the clerical staff:      (1)  The eligibility period so far as these three types

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

         are concerned  was reduced  from 15  years  to  10           years service.      (2)  The condition requiring stenographers and personal           assistants to  put in  5 years service as such was           dispensed with.      (3)  Their period  of training  on  clerical  desk  was           reduced from 1 year to six months.      (4)  They were  to be fitted according to the length of           their service  in the  panel for the year in which           they passed  the test and not in the next panel as           before.      (5)  Those who  are graduates among these three groups,           even if they had not passed in all the subjects in           part I of Indian Institute of Bankers examination,           would be  eligible for exemption from appearing in           the additional  paper  on  ’Practice  and  Law  of           Banking’ and  ’Book-keeping and  accounts’ if they           had passed  in these  two  subjects  in  the  said           examination.      (6)  This benefit  of exemption  which was available to           the  clerical   staff  of   15   years’   standing           previously was  extended to  those of them who had           put in only 10 years service.      The two  complaints (complaint Nos. 2 and 3 of 1980) on which  the   impugned  award   has  been   made  were  filed respectively on  July 22,  1980  and  August  1,  1980.  The complainants who  were clerks grade I had passed the test in the panel  year 1978-79 and were empanelled for promotion to the post of staff officer grade A. The grievance made in the two complaints  is that the result of the changes introduced in the promotional scheme by Circular No. 6 relaxing for the stenographers and  personal assistants  the conditions  they were required  to satisfy to be able to sit for the test and permitting them  to be  fitted according  to the  length  of their service  in the  panel for  the year in which they had passed the  test, was  that many  who could  not  have  been considered for  promotion in  preference to the complainants had circular No. 8 been in force, would 115 now be  entitled to  a higher  preference. According  to the complainants the alterations made during the pendency of the reference before  the National Tribunal amounted to changing their conditions  of service to their prejudice in violation of section  33 (1)  (a) of  the Industrial Disputes Act. The complainants in  complaint No.  2 of 1980 stated that if the alterations introduced  by Circular  No. 6  were allowed  to continue "the  chances of  promotion would  become bleak for them’;  complainants   in  complaint  No.  3  of  1980  also expressed a  similar apprehension  that as  a result  of the changes introduced  "their chances of promotion would recede further and further".      The appellants  in civil  appeal 2607  of 1980  who are stenographers  acquired   eligibility  to   appear  in   the qualifying test  because of  the modifications introduced in the  existing  scheme  by  Circular  No.  6.  All  the  four appellants in  civil appeal  3150 of  1980 are from clerical cadre, three of whom are officiating as staff officers grade A; they  are also  beneficiaries of  the relaxations made in the existing  scheme by  circular No.  6. The  appellants in both these  appeals are  obviously  affected  by  the  Award allowing the  complaints and  declaring circular  No.  6  as invalid.      Section 33  (1) (a)  prohibits the  employer during the pendency of a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute before a  Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

altering to  the prejudice  of the  workmen concerned in the dispute their  existing conditions  of service.  Sub-section (2) of  section 33,  however, permits  the employer to alter the conditions  of service  in  regard  to  any  matter  not connected with  the dispute  in accordance with the standing orders applicable  to the workman concerned or in accordance with the  terms of the contract between the employer and the workman. The  right given  to the employer under sub-section (2) is subject to the condition laid down in sub-section (3) of section  33 that the right can be exercised only with the express permission  in writing of the authority before which the proceeding  is pending. Section 33-A of the Act provides that where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal any employee aggrieved by such contravention may  make complaint  in writing to such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, and on receipt of such complaint the  Labour Court,  Tribunal or  National Tribunal shall adjudicate  upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to  it or  pending before it in accordance with the provisions  of   the  Act   and  submit  its  award  to  the appropriate government.  Section 31  (1) of the Act provides for penalty  for contravention  of the provisions of section 33; an 116 employer found  guilty of  such contravention  is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.      In this case circular No. 6 was not introduced with the permission of  the National  Tribunal, Bombay,  before which the reference  was pending; to determine whether thereby the provisions of section 33 have been contravened, the question that requires  to be  answered is  whether  the  alterations introduced by  Circular No. 6 are connected with the dispute pending in  reference before  the  National  Tribunal.  This again leads  to the  question, what was the dispute that was referred  to   the  National   Tribunal  for   adjudication? According to  the complainants  their promotional  prospects were adversely affected by the impugned circular. Item 12 of the schedule  annexed to the order of reference is described as ’Promotion’.  Demand No.  19 in  the charter  of  demands presented  by   the  All   India  Reserve   Bank   Employees Association  mentions  ’Promotional  avenues’  but,  as  the National Tribunal  itself  noticed,  the  matters  specified under the  head ’promotional avenues’ relate to the creation of more  promotional posts  and  the  upgrading  of  certain posts. Demand No. 19 does not thus relate to the promotional scheme in question. The impugned award also refers to demand No. 27  of the charter of demands submitted by the All India Reserve  Bank   Workers  organisation.   Demand  No.  27  is described as  ’Promotional Policy’  and all  that is said in the charter  of demands  under this  head is that the matter "should be  discussed and  finalised on  the basis  of  pre- requisites of  promotional policy  submitted in 1969". It is not  therefore   clear  how  demand  No.  27  could  have  a connection with  the promotional  scheme set out in circular No. 6  issued in  1979. The  award does  not  refer  to  the statements of  claim filed  on behalf  of the workmen; it is likely that because of the order of injunction issued by the Calcutta High  Court to  which we have earlier referred, the unions representing  the workmen were not able to file their statements of claim before the National Tribunal disposed of the complaints under section 33A. The Tribunal however held: "Industrial Disputes  Act contemplates  reference  in  wider

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

terms than  the actual  item in  dispute. Section 10 (IA) of the  Industrial   Disputes  Act   which  provides   for  the appointment of  the National Tribunal shows that the Central Government could  form its  opinion not only on the existing dispute but also on the apprehended dispute and the order of reference can  cover not  only the  dispute but  any  matter appearing to  be connected  with or relevant to the dispute. In view  of it,  it  cannot  be  said  that  when  the  item ’Promotion’ has been referred to 117 the Tribunal,  it has  the limitation  of remaining  in  the frame work of the demand.. the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide  on the  natural meaning  of the words used in the item of reference.. The item seems to have been deliberately stated in  terms.. it  looks to  be referring to the process involving promotions."  Having said  so the  Tribunal added: "The extent  of such  process  will  have  to  be  carefully defined because  there is  no  dispute  with  the  axiomatic principle that  promotion is  a matter  in the discretion of the employer".      It is difficult to follow the steps of reasoning in the extract from  the award  quoted above;  it is also not clear how the  view expressed  therein helps  in ascertaining what was the  dispute referred  to the Tribunal for adjudication. No one  can deny  that under  section 10  (IA)  the  Central Government could  refer to the National Tribunal an existing or an  apprehended dispute;  the order  or reference in this case however  shows that  it was  not an apprehended dispute but an industrial dispute that "exists between the employers in relation to the Reserve Bank of India and their class III workmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule" annexed to  the order which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. As  section 10 (IA) expressly says, any matter appearing to  be connected  or relevant  to the  existing or apprehended dispute  can also  be referred  to the  National Tribunal  for  adjudication,  but  obviously  unless  it  is determined what  the dispute  was that has been referred for adjudication, it is not possible to say whether a particular matter is  connected with it. The Tribunal thought it unjust to restrict  the meaning of the word ’promotion’ to what was suggested by  the charters  of demand and decided to give it its  "natural  meaning"  which  according  to  the  Tribunal includes "the  process involving  promotion".  The  question however remains  how did  the Tribunal  satisfy itself  that when by  the order  of reference  a specific matter, namely, ’promotion’ was  referred to  it for  adjudication,  it  was implied that the word should be given a "natural meaning" in the sense  in which  the Tribunal  understood it.  We do not think it  reasonable to  suppose that the order of reference required the  Tribunal to adjudicate on all possible matters relating to promotion. We therefore accept the contention of the appellants  that the  Tribunal should  have defined  the area of  the dispute  referred to it for adjudication before proceeding to  consider whether  the promotional  scheme set out in  Circular No.  6 could  be said  to be connected with that dispute. 118      Having reached  this conclusion we should have sent the matter back  to the  National Tribunal  for ascertaining the scope of the dispute referred to it for adjudication, if the assumption  were   correct  that   the  alterations  in  the promotional scheme  introduced by Circular No. 6 amounted to changing the  conditions of  service of the complainants; if not,  remitting   the  matter   to  the   Tribunal  will  be unnecessary. What  Circular No.  6  did  was  to  relax  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

stenographers and  personal assistants  the conditions  they had to  satisfy to  be able  to sit  for the  test. If  they passed the  test, they  would get  into the penal along with employees belonging  to the  clerical  cadre  who  also  had passed the  test. Vacancies  in the  post of  staff  officer Grade A  are filled  by recruiting employees from the panel. The panel,  it appears  from the  award, is a permanent one. How those  who come  out successful  in the  test are  to be fitted in  the panel  has been  stated earlier. The panel is made up  of employees  belonging to  different cadres. It is difficult  to  see  how  alteration  of  the  conditions  of eligibility governing  employees belonging  to a  particular cadre can  amount to  changing the  conditions of service of employees who  belonged to  another cadre,  assuming for the present that the said conditions were conditions of service. The changes  introduced in  respect of the stenographers and personal assistants  may have  an impact  on the promotional prospects of employees from another cadre who are already in the panel or even of those who were expecting to be included in the  panel, but  it is  not possible  to agree  that this would amount  to changing their conditions of service. It is difficult to  think of  the  conditions  of  service  of  an employee as  including  an  implied  right  to  prevent  the employer from  altering the  conditions of  service of other employees.  In   a  given   case  such   alteration  may  be inequitable, and  a way  may  be  found  in  the  Industrial Disputes Act  to redress  the  grievance  of  the  employees affected thereby,  but in  this case the question is whether if amount  to altering  the  condition  of  service  of  the complainants. In  Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal this Court upheld  the validity  of the combined seniority scheme introduced by  the Reserve  Bank for the clerical staff. The first paragraph  of the  head note  to the report summarizes the facts on which challenge to the scheme was based:           "At every  centre of  the Reserve  Bank  of  India           there   were   five   departments,   the   General           Department and four Specialised Departments. There           was a separate 119           seniority  list   for  the   employees   in   each           Department at  each centre  and  confirmation  and           promotion of  employees was  only in the vacancies           arising within  their Department  at each  centre.           There  were   two  grades   of  clerks   in   each           Department, namely,  Grade I and Grade II. The pay           scales of  Grade I  and Grade II clerks in all the           departments were  the same and their conditions of           service were  also identical.  There was automatic           promotion from  Grade II  to Grade  I and  when  a           clerk from  Grade II  was promoted to officiate in           Grade  I,   he  got   an  additional   officiating           allowance of  Rs. 25/-  per month. There were also           several categories  of non-clerical  posts in  the           General as  well as  Specialised Departments,  and           their pay  scale was  the same as that of Grade II           clerks. In  view of  expanding activities  in  the           Specialised  Departments,   there   were   greater           opportunities for  confirmation and  promotion for           employees in  the Specialised  Departments than in           the  General   Department.  This   gave  rise   to           dissatisfaction amongst  employees in  the General           Department and they claimed equal opportunities by           having a  combined  seniority  list  for  all  the           clerks for confirmation and promotion. The Reserve           Bank, sought  to justify  the  separate  seniority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

         lists  on   the  ground  that  the  work  in  each           department was  of  a  special  nature  and  inter           transferability  was   undesirable  and   hard  to           achieve. As  a result of the recommendation of the           National  Tribunal.   however,  the  Reserve  Bank           introduced the  Optee Scheme  of 1965  as a  first           step towards  equalization of opportunities. Under           the  scheme,   the  option   to  go  over  to  the           Specialised Departments  was confined to confirmed           Grade II  clerks and officiating Grade I clerks in           the  General   Department.  If  he  exercised  the           option, he  was eligible to be selected. If he was           selected. he would be entitled to be absorbed only           as Grade  II  clerk  in  one  of  the  Specialised           Departments with  the result  that if  he  was  an           officiating  Grade   I  clerk   in   the   General           Department at  the time  of the  exercise  of  the           option, he  would lose  the benefit of officiation           in Grade  I in  the General Department as also the           monetary benefit of Rs. 25/-. His seniority in the           cadre  of  Grade  II  clerks  in  the  Specialised           Department in  which  he  was  absorbed  would  be           deter- 120           mined on  the  basis  of  his  length  of  service           calculated from  the date of his recruitment if he           was a graduate when he joined service, or from the           date of  his graduation  if he  became a  graduate           whilst in service.      It was  argued in Paliwal’s case that the combined list was invalid because it discriminated against the petitioners vis-a-vis other  grade II  clerks who  had opted  under  the optee Scheme of 1965. This Court held:           "The contention  of the  petitioners was that some           of the  Grade II  clerks who  had opted  under the           optee Scheme  of 1965  were promoted  as  Grade  I           Clerks, while  the petitioners  continued as Grade           II Clerks  and before  their  turn  for  promotion           could arrive,  the Combined  Seniority Scheme  was           brought into force and that prejudicially affected           their promotional  opportunities and  thus brought           about  unjust   discrimination   between   persons           belonging to  the same  class. This contention has           no force  and must  be rejected.  We have  already           discussed and  shown that  it was competent to the           Reserve Bank  to introduce  the Combined Seniority           Scheme for the purpose of integrating the clerical           staff in  all the departments and the Reserve Bank           was not  bound to  wait until  all the  transferee           Grade II  Clerks under  the optee  Scheme of  1965           were  promoted   as  Grade   I  Clerks   in  their           respective Specialised  Departments. There  was no           such assurance  given by  the Reserve Bank when it           introduced the  optee Scheme  of 1965. What it did           was merely  to equalise the opportunities of Grade           II Clerks in the General Departments with those of           Grade II  Clerks in  the Specialised  Departments.           The Reserve  Bank did  not undertake  that it will           not  take  any  steps  for  bringing  about  total           integration of the Clerical services until all the           transferee Grade  II  Clerks  were  promoted.  The           Reserve  Bank   was  entitled   to  introduce  the           Combined Seniority  Scheme at  any time it thought           fit and  the validity  of the  Combined  Seniority           Scheme cannot  be assailed  on the  ground that it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

         was  introduced   at  a  time  when  some  of  the           transferee Grade  II Clerks  still remained  to be           promoted and was discriminatory 121           against them. It may be that some transferee Grade           II Clerks  had already obtained promotion as Grade           I Clerks by the time the Combined Seniority Scheme           was introduced,  while others like the petitioners           had not. But that cannot be helped. It is all part           of  the  incidence  of  service  and  in  law,  no           grievance can be made against it." These observations  in Paliwal’s case are equally applicable to the  case before  us. It  was competent  for the  Bank to introduce a  combined promotional  scheme for  the  clerical staff, stenographers,  and personal  assistants and the Bank was not  bound to  wait until all employees belonging to the clerical cadre  whose names  were already  in the panel when circular No.  6 was  introduced had  been promoted  as staff officers Grade  A. There  was no such assurance given by the Bank  when  it  introduced  circular  No.  8  on  which  the complainants rely.  The Bank did not undertake that it would not take any step to change the conditions the stenographers and the  personal assistants  were required to satisfy to be able to  appear in  the test  until all  the clerks  already empanelled were promoted. Circular No. 6 cannot therefore be assailed on  the ground  that it  was introduced  when  some employees belonging  to the  clerical grade whose names were already in the panel remained to be promoted. That cannot be helped, and,  as observed in Paliwal’s case, "it is all part of the  incidence of  service and in law no grievance can be made against  it". Being in the panel in any particular year does not  ensure a  fixed place in the panel for an employee until he  is promoted.  It may  be recalled that in 1964 and again by circular No. 8 in 1972 the stenographers conditions of service  were altered  to their  prejudice. The right the complainants now  claim  is  based  on  the  change  in  the conditions of  service of  the stenographers  made to  their detriment earlier.      The grievance of the complainants really relates to the changes  affecting  their  chances  of  promotion.  We  have earlier quoted  from the charters of demand to show that the complainants themselves  looked upon the alterations made by circular No. 6 as affecting their "chances of promotion". It is well settled that a rule which affects the promotion of a person relates  to his  condition of service but this is not so if what is affected is a chance of 122 promotion only.  This Court  in Mohd.  Shujat Ali and others etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. held:           "But when we speak of a right to be considered for           promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance           of promotion-the  latter would  certainly not be a           condition of  service...that though  a right to be           considered  for   promotion  is   a  condition  of           service, mere chances of promotion are not." In Shujat  Ali’s case the respondents went down in seniority and it  was  urged  that  this  affected  their  chances  of promotion. In  Shujat Ali  reference  was  made  to  earlier decision of  this Court,  State of  Mysore v.  G.B.  Purohit where also  it was held that though a right to be considered for promotion  is a  condition of  service, mere  chances of promotion are  not and  that a  rule  which  merely  affects chances  of  promotion  cannot  be  regarded  as  varying  a condition of  service. The  facts of Purohit’s case and what was decided  in that  case have  been summarized  in  Shujat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

Ali’s case as follows:           "What happened  in State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit           was that  the districtwise  seniority of  Sanitary           Inspectors was  changed to Statewise seniority and           as a  result of  this change, the respondents went           down in seniority and became very junior. This, it           was urged,  affected their  chances  of  promotion           which   were   protected...This   contention   was           negatived and Wanchoo J., as he then was, speaking           on behalf  of this  Court observed:  It is said on           behalf of the respondents that as their chances of           promotion have  been affected  their conditions of           service have  been changed  to their disadvantage.           We see  no force  in this argument because chances           of promotion are not conditions of service."      The fact  that as  a result  of  the  changes  made  by circular No.  6 the  complainants lost  a few  places in the panel affects  their chances  of promotion but not the right to be considered for promotion. 123 that being  so, it  cannot be said that the alterations made by circular  No. 6  amount to  changing  the  conditions  of service of  the complainants;  the  grievance  made  by  the complainants does  not therefore  appear to  have any basis. The appeals  are  accordingly  allowed  and  the  complaints dismissed, in the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. V.D.K.                                      Appeals allowed. 124