Court No. - 56
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36342 of 1996 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.D. Misra,M.D. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gopal Misra,R.N. Shukla,Rakesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Mr. S.N. Tiwari, holding brief of Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents, despite the matter was called twice.
On 29.11.2018, this Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri S.N. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None appears on behalf of the respondent to address the Court.
As a last opportunity and in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned for today.
List this matter after two weeks."
In view of the above and considering the fact that the present writ petition is of the year 1996, this Court has decided to hear the matter on merits, even in the absence of learned counsel for the respondents.
As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as an Apprentice in Elgin Mill No.1, Kanpur in the year 1958 and was absorbed as Supervisor on 1.5.1960. He was transferred to Elgin Mill No.2, on 1.9.1962. As per the case of the petitioner, he was placed in Grade 'F' on 1.1.1978 and claimed that he was entitled for the pay scale of Grade 'E' as his juniors had been placed in Grade 'E'.
In terms of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute was raised on the basis of reference made by the State before the Labour Court No.1, Kanpur which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 305 of 1994.
For ready reference, the reference to the Labour Court is mentioned herein after:-
“D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh jktsUnz izlkn ik.Ms; iq= Jh jke 'kCn ik.Ms; in twfu;j vkQhlj drkbZ foHkkx dks Js.kh bZ ds osru dze esa u j[kk tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gS\ ;fn gka] rks lacaf/kr deZpkjh D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks"k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr\”
The Labour Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record rejected the claim of the petitioner vide award dated 25.6.1998 and held that:-
“8- lsok;kstdksa dh vksj ls cgl dh x;h fd ;g izksUufr dk ekeyk gS rFkk izksUufr ds ekeys esa izca/k&ra= dks fu.kZ; ysus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gS rFkk bl ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha dj ldrkA ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd Lo;a Jh ik.Ms; us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;g fookn mudh izksUufr o bZ xzsM dk osru ikus ds fy;s yxk;k x;k gS rFkk Jh ik.Ms; us ;g dgk gS fd mudk ekeyk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lu 92 ls py jgk gSA ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd Jh ik.Ms; us LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fRr ;kstuk ds vUrZxr lsok fuo`fRr ys fy;k gS vr% muds ekeys esa dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd Jh ik.Ms; us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd **;g lgh gS fd bZ xzsM ,Q xzsM ls c<k gS tks mijksDr 4 uke mlus vf/kdkfj;ksa ds crk;s gSa og lHkh bZ xzsM ds vkfQlj gSA mijksDr pkjksa deZpkjh bZ xzsM esa dc izksUur fd;s x;s mUgs /;ku ugh gS ysfdu ;g pkjksa deZpkjh muls twfu;j gSA U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[k mUgksusa nkf[ky ugh fd;k gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks fd ;g pkjksa deZpkjh muls twfu;j gSA**
9- i=koyh ij miyC/k lcwr ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd okLro esa jktsUnz izlkn ik.Ms; dk ekeyk izksUufr dk gS rFkk bl ekeys esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk ;g er gS fd izksUufr ds ekeys izca/k&ra= ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa vkrs gSa rFkk bl ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; dks fu.kZ; nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA Lo;a Jh ik.Ms; us viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd ;g fookn mUgksus izksUufr o bZ xzsM dk osru ikus ds fy;s yxk;k gSA Jh ik.Ms; twfu;j vkfQlj ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk og lhfu;j vkfQlj dk xzsM ikuk pkgrs gS ftl ij fopkj djus ds fy;s izca/k&ra= gh l{ke gSA tSlk fd Loa; Jh ik.Ms; us Lohdkj fd;k gS bl laca/k esa mudk ekeyk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu Hkh gSA lsok;kstdks us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mudh ,d xzhokUl desVh cuh gS rFkk Jh ik.Ms; dk ekeyk Hkh mDr desVh ds le{k fopkjk/khu gSA lsok;kstdks dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd Jh ik.Ms; lqijokbtj xzsM ds vf/kdkjh gSa rFkk mudk csru Hkh dkQh vf/kd gSA Jh ik.Ms; us vius c;ku esa ;g dgk fd og twfu;j vkfQlj ds in ij
dk;Zjr gS rFkk mUgksusa ;g dgk gS fd mudk dk;Z lqijokbtjh Hkh gS vkSj DyfdZy Hkh gS ysfdu tSlk fd mij dgk tk pqdk gS] izksUufr ds ekeyksa esa fu.kZ; ysus dk vf/kdkj izca/k ra= dk gSA ;fn FkksM+h nsj ds fy;s ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk; fd Jh ik.Ms; odZeSu gS rks Hkh mudh izksUufr ds ekeys esa fu.kZ; Je U;k;ky;
}kjk ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA”
The present writ petition is being filed challenging the said award. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have mentioned that:-
“(a) That there are seven grades of Officers in the respondent Mills. Lowest grade is Grade 'G' and the highest grade is Grade 'A'. Grades G and F are grades for junior executives while grades 'E' to'A' are for senior executives. None of them are workman and their terms and conditions of employment are governed by the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by the Respondent Company.
(b) That the petitioner was working as junior executive in Grade 'F' and was paid salary of that grade accordingly. He however clamimed wages of two grades higher i.e. Grade 'D'. Rationalisation of pay scale in he respondent Mills was made effective w.e.f. 1st October, 1989. Pay scales of Grade 'D', 'E' and 'F' officers are fixed as under:-
Grade 'D' -Rs.2450-120-4370 Grade 'E' -Rs.2000-90-3460 Grade 'F' -Rs.1900-85-2325-90-3225
(c) That for removal of grievance about fixation or revision of pay a grievance Committee was constituted. A large number of officers raised grievances about their fitment and pay which have been disposed off. The petitioner's grievance was also considered by the said Committee. Besides filing grievance he also raised alleged industrial dispute in the year 1993 as if he was a workman. The Grievance Redressal Committee rejected his claim which was communicated to him by letter dated 18.09.1996. This decision has not been challenged by the petitioner in any writ petition.
(d) That the petitioner thereafter opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved on 20.03.1996. All his dues were paid to him by cheque No. 826764 dated 03.04.1996. Thus no dispute can exist. He is not in service from 21.03.1996.
6. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the writ petition are wrong and are denied. The petitioner raised grievance regarding his pay in 1975 and also before the Grievance Committee. After about 18 years he raised industrial dispute when he was an officer. The petitioner was paid correct wages in the year 1975-78. Increments were also given to him. The petitioner has now challenged the legality and correctness of the award dated 25.06.1996, passed by the Labour Court. It is pertiment to mention here that order of reference as referred by the State Govt. runs as under:-
KYA SEVA YOJKON DWARA APNE KARMACHARI RAJENDRA PRASAD PANDEYPUTRA SHRI RAM SABD PANDEY PAD JUNIOR OFFICER KATAI VIBHAG KO SHERNI 'E' KEY VETAN KRAM MEN NA RAKHA JANA ANUCHIT AVAM AVAIDHANIK HAI? YADI HAN TO SAMBANDHIT KARMCHARI KYA HITLABH/ANUTOSH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA KIS ANYA VIVRAN SAHIT?
The perusal of the above reference order establishes that the State Government had referred case of promotion to Grade 'E' which is next higher grade in which he petitioner was working i.e. Grade 'F'. The alleged dispute regarding increments for the years 1975 and 1978 were not in issue before the Labour Court and cannot be raised before this Hon'ble Court. They are wholly irrelevent for the purposes of the present case.”
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Labour Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and rightly held that the dispute raised by the petitioner is in regard of promotion, which cannot be decided by the Labour Court. The petitioner had taken voluntary retirement and was relieved on 20.3.1996.
Promotion is a managerial and administrative function of the management. It is well settled that the High Court under the writ jurisdiction has very limited scope of interference with the award passed by a Labour Court.
In view of the above mentioned discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned award. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated. No orders as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Rahul.