JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsels for the parties.
2. This petition arises out of award dated 30.11.1985 passed by Labour Court (IV), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 5 of 1985 between the U.P. State Electricity Board (which is hereinafter called as 'the UPSEB' or 'the Board') and another and the Kanpur Bijali Mazdoor Sabha. The aforesaid award was enforced by publication by the State Government on the Notice Board on 15.1.1986.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an industrial dispute was espoused by 'Kanpur Bijali Mazdoor Sabha in 'respect of 8 workers for giving them the designation and corresponding pay. scale of bus conductor. The matter was referred to Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 5 of 1985.
4. The case of the Union in respect of 8 workers, in the order of reference, was that they were designated as helpers, but, in fact, they were performing the work of bus conductors and as Such, were entitled for designation and corresponding pay scale of bus conductors. It is submitted that the duties of these eight employees was to collect tickets from the office for the passenger employees of the UPSEB, issue tickets to the employees and to deposit cash, which they collected from the sale of the tickets. Their duty was also to maintain the logbook and to submit report to the establishment with regard to the break down of the vehicle, if any. The buses plied by the UPSEB were only for taking its employees to their work place and back, who had no conveyance or had difficulty of conveyance.
5. Refusing the case of the workers, Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the workmen at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 were designated as helpers. The job of workers at Serial Nos. 1 2, 3, 4 and 8 was to assist the driver of the buses and workmen at Serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was to help the motor mechanic and fitters in the workshop. The grounds for denying the post and pay scale of conductors to these workers was that there is neither any post of bus conductor in Panki Thermal Power Station nor any grade and designation was specified by the U.P. State Electricity Board. There were initially four buses being plied with effect from January, 1984 and only one bus was plied w.e.f., 1.1.1984 onwards. As such the workers mentioned at Serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were, therefore, transferred as helpers in the workshop to assist motor mechanic and fitters as there was no further requirement of work on the bus. Workman at Serial No. 6 was subsequently transferred to Tanda Thermal Power Station, There he was working as crane driver.
6. By the impugned award dated 30.11.1985 the Labour Court has awarded designation of bus conductor to the workers mentioned in the order of reference for the period 1975-1983. The present petition has been filed challenging its validity and correctness on the ground that the Labour Court has committed manifest error of law on face of record in not considering the aspect of the matter that there was no post or corresponding pay scale of bus conductor in. the establishment and the workers could not have been granted the designation and corresponding pay scale of bus conductor. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are whimsical, capricious and arbitrary. Admittedly there is no post of Conductors in the Board. The UPSEB was only manufacturing and distributing electricity. The Union sought parity in their work from the nature and duty of bus conductor employed by UP. Roadways Transport Corporation.
7. The Counsel for the Petitioner submits that except Vidhya Sagar no other person had given evidence and as such the case of the workers except of Vidya Sagar, was case of no evidence and even he had stated that from January, 1984 he was not doing the work of conductor. It has been emphatically argued that from the evidence on record it is clear that buses were being plied by the Board for its employees and the buses were stopped from 1.1.1984 and then after the stoppage of plying of buses dispute was raised through reference on 29.3.1984.
8. He submits that there is no finding of the Labour Court that on the date of reference, i.e., 29.3.1984 any of the workers was working as bus conductor and there was no bus being plied on that date, As such, no workers were working in the capacity either as helper or bus conductor. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even assuming without admitting that the workers are liable to get wages of bus conductor, at best they could be awarded wages for the period for which they had worked as bus conductor, i.e., prior to 1.1.1984. He further submits that the reference could not have been answered in the affirmative when the place of employment was closed i.e, buses were no longer being plied.
9. A Supplementary Affidavit has also been filed by Sri Vidya Sagar, in which it has been stated that Dinesh Chand Shukla, workman at Serial No. 1, has been promoted with effect from 18.1.1987, Abdul Qadir at Serial No. 5 expired on 20.12.1988, Brijendra Singh at Serial No. 6 has been transferred to Tanda as Crane Driver, Mani Ram at Serial No. 7 has been promoted as technical with effect from 3.12.1985 and that workers at Serial Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 arc working as helpers.
10. From the arguments by the parties the following admitted facts emerge in the Writ Petition:-
(a) The workers have worked from 1975 to 1983.
(b) From 1.1.1984 no buses are being plied and no worker was working on the buses as helper or Conductor.
(c) Dispute was raised on 29.3.1984 after buses stopped plying.
(d) There is no corresponding post and pay scale in the U.P. State Electricity Board.
(e) The designation and pay scale has been given to the workers on the basis of parity, at bar with the conductors of the U.P. State Roadways Corporation.
11. In AIR 1957 SC 95, Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pipraich Sugar Mills Mazdoor Union, it has been held that no industrial dispute can exist or can be apprehended after the closure of place of employment. The place of employment of the workers in order of reference was as per their case, the buses, which were being plied by the U,P. State Electricity Board for its employees and which were no longer in existence on the date of reference, some of the workers in the order of reference have been granted promotion and workmen at Serial Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the order of reference arc working as helpers.
12. In view of the fair statement made by the Counsel for the Petitioner, the workers in the order of reference are directed to paid officiating wage/salary of a bus conductor, which was effective for the period 1975 to 1983, i.e., the date till they have worked as bus conductors at par with the salary/wages of Conductors in the U.P.S.R.T.C. till they worked on the buses as Conductors/helpers. Since there is no post of bus conductor in the U.P. State Electricity Board, it is held that awarding of pay scale of bus conductor was clearly illegal and outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The pay scale of bus conductor, which has been awarded by the Labour Court would be treated as special pay for the workers till they have actually worked on the buses and thereafter they shall be entitled to the wages/salary according to the work done by them on the post on which they have worked in the U.P. State Electricity Board.
13. With the aforesaid directions the petition is allowed in part.
14. Parties to bear their own costs.