SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 15001 of 1996. D/d. 2.5.2001.

S. Murugan and others - Appellants

Versus

Union of India and Another - Respondents

Merger of cadres - Merer of cadre challenged on the ground that it effects seniority - Combined seniority list prepared by merging together the Machinists' cadre and the Engineering cadre as per the decision of Tribunal - Appellant (Machinists) assailed the merger on the ground that they were not bound by the Tribunal's decision as they were not parties to the same - Held, constitution and formation of a cadre is the prerogative of the employer and it is for the employer to decide which unit of service would constitute a cadre.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (for short "the Tribunal").

2. The appellants belong to the group of Machinists working in the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi at Madras. The sole grievance of the appellants is that the Machinists form a cadre by themselves whereas those belonging to the Engineering group belong to another cadre and they could not have been merged together and a combined seniority list could not have been drawn up as such combined list affects future chances of promotion to the appellants belonging to the Machinists? cadre. It appears that there was some disparity of pay between the employees in the Machinists? cadre and corresponding employees in the Engineering cadre who belong to the different discipline of welders, blacksmiths, fitters etc. The Government by decision dated 1-12-1994 removed the disparity and made one scale of pay meant for all these people. It is only thereafter when in 1982, two separate seniority lists were drawn, one for the Machinists and the other for Engineering group, that decision was assailed by filing a writ petition by persons belonging to the Engineering group. While the matter was pending before the High Court, on the Administrative Tribunals Act having come into force, the matter stood transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal ultimately allowed the same, which attained finality not being assailed any further. The necessary effect of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is that both these groups of employees, namely, persons belonging to the Machinists? group and the persons belonging to the Engineering group form a combined cadre and, therefore, combined seniority list was required to be drawn up. In fact, in all other ordnance factories except the factory at Avadi, the employees belonging to all these groups form one cadre and one seniority list is drawn up. It also further transpires that in a joint meeting of the two unions, one belonging to the Machinists and the other belonging to the Engineering group, it was decided that there should be a merger of both the cadres and one seniority list would be drawn up.

3. The present appellants however assailed the merger of these posts and formation of one cadre, essentially on the ground that they are not bound by the earlier decision of the Tribunal as they are not parties to the same. There may be some substance in the aforesaid contention, but even on merits, we see no justification in the contention of the appellants belonging to the Machinists? group that there should be two different cadres ? one for the Machinists and the other for the Engineering group. Constitution and formation of a cadre is the prerogative of the employer and it is for the employer to decide which unit of service would constitute a cadre. In the case in hand when in all other ordnance factories all these posts are included in one cadre, there is no rationale for the employees in the factory at Avadi to claim that there should be two different cadres. That apart, the order dated 1-12-1974 by which order the disparity in pay was removed as well as the joint meeting of the members of the two unions unequivocally indicate that there should be only one cadre.

4. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring the interference of this Court.

This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.