Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5684 of 1998 Petitioner :- Vinod Prakash Chaturvedi Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court -2 Kanpur And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N.Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Komal Mehrotra,Pranjal Mehrotra,Ranjit Saxena
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the award dated 18th February, 1997 passed by the Labour Court (2), Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur.
In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the Appropriate Government under a Notification dated 9th September, 1994 referred industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court (No. 2), Kanpur in the terms that "Whether non-grant of the designation of Assistant Accountant and the corresponding pay scale to the workman Sri Vinod Prakash Chaturvedi, son of Sri Ram Swaroop Chaturvedi, Routine Grade Clerk, by his employer is unjust and invalid ?, if yes, then for what relief the workman is entitled and from which date along with other ancillary details ?". The Labour Court after considering the entire evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the workman was not working as Assistant Accountant and, therefore, there was no occasion for designating him as such and further to make fixation of his pay in the pay scale concerned.
Being aggrieved by the award dated 18th February, 1997, this petition for writ is preferred with contention that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant but his candidature was wrongly not forwarded to the Committee concerned for the purpose of promotion. Beside that, the work relating to the post of Assistant Accountant was also taken from the petitioner and, therefore, the pay scale pertaining to that post must have been awarded to the workman. On going through the award impugned, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is not in dispute that the petitioner workman was holding the post of Routine Grade Clerk and not of the Assistant Accountant. Some work may have been taken from him relating to the accounts but merely on that account, he does not become eligible to have fixation in the pay scale pertaining to the post of Assistant Accountant. In view of it, there was no illegality in not extending pay to scale concerned. So far as the issue with regard to non-awarding candidature of the petitioner for consideration of promotion is concerned, that is not the part of the dispute referred for adjudication and hence, that cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction also. The award impugned as such does not suffer from any wrong that may warrant interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 VMA (Govind Mathur, C.J.)