JUDGMENT B.N. Misra, J.
1. The union and the concerned workman Baksha Singh have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the Award, dated 30.5.1977, passed by the Labour Court, Meerut whereby it has been held that petitioner No. 2 is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that he was not entitled to the designation and wage-scale of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II).
2. Facts of the case may be briefly stated. Petitioner No. 2 was an employee under M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Unit Mohiuddinpur, district Meerut, respondent No. 2. His wage structure and wage fixation were governed by the State Government Notification No. 2309 (ST.)/XXXVI-A-273 (S.T.)-1960, dated 27.4.1961. His designation was Electric In-charge and although under 1961 Order he belonged to the category of 'highly skilled A' workman entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 180-8- 220-E.B.-1O-270, by virtue of a settlement (Ext. E/3), dated 11.9.1961, between the Management and the union, he was paid salary in the scale of Rs. 200-15-275-E.B.-l5-350 admissible to Workshop Foreman I belonging to Supervisory C grade. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Second Wage Board, the State Government revised the wage structure in the sugar industry, vide Government Notification No. 10397 (HI)/XXXVI-C-83 (HI)-70, dated 27.11.1970. The post of Electric Incharge held by petitioner No. 2 was changed to 'Foreman (Electrical)' under the 1970 Order and the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs.255-15-390-20-490 admissible to C Supervisory staff in Grade C. Petitioner No. 2 raised a claim that he was entitled to be designated as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II) under the 1970 Order. His claim was espoused by the union and after failure of conciliation proceedings, the State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 4.7.1972.
"KYA SEWAYOJAKGN DWARA SHRI BAKSHA SINGH (ATMAJ SHRI HUKUM SINGH) ELECTRIC INCHARGE KO ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (SUPERVISORY A-2) KA PAD WO VETANKRAM D1YA JANA CHAHIYE? YADI HAN TO KIS TITHI SE AUR ANYA KIN SHARTON KE SATH?"
Parties appeared before the Labour Court, filed written statements and adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Vide its Award dated 30.5.1977 (Annexure 9) the Labour Court held that petitioner No. 2 was not a 'workman' within the meaning of that expression as contained in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he was not entitled to the designation and wage-scale of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II).
3. Both the findings of the Labour Court are under challenge in this writ petition. On the question whether petitioner No. 2 was a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a 'workman' must be set aside as it is based on an incorrect appraisal of the duties of petitioner No. 2 assigned to him as contained in the 1970 Order and as supported by the evidence led before the Labour Court. This question has been considered by the Labour Court in paragraphs 5 to 13 of its Award. The duties of petitioner No. 2 as Electric Incharge under the 1961 Order have been extracted in paragraph 8 of the Award. They are reproduced hereunder:
"Responsible for efficient operation, maintenance, repairs and erection of electrical plants, machineries, equipments and installation and control of personnel under him subject to the overall control of the Chief Engineer. He is incharge of all the three shifts".
The duties of petitioner No. 2 assigned to him under the 1970 Order as Foreman (Electrical) which have not been extracted in the Award and perhaps not considered by the Labour Court, are also reproduced hereunder:
"Responsible for operation, maintenance, repairs and erection of electrical plants machineries, equipments and installation in the general shift under the guidance of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) or independently, and doing works incidental thereto.
The changes in the duties under 1961 Order and 1970 Order are noteworthy and the most important change is that while under the 1961 Order the duties assigned to petitioner No. 2 included 'control of personnel under him' subject to the overall control of the Chief Engineer and he was incharge of all the three shifts, under 1970 Order he has not been given any control over personnel under him nor has he been put incharge of all the three shifts. His work is confined to the general shift. In regard to his duties the earlier statement of petitioner No. 2 before the Labour Court on 25.1.1974 and his subsequent statement on 26.6.1976 are not so discrepant as to reject the latter altogether. The changes in his duties brought about by the 1970 order, his evidence and that of Om Prakash do not at all lead to the conclusion that the duties of petitioner No. 2 were mainly supervisory. As already noted, personnel working under him were not at all under his control and Om Prakash has stated that petitioner No. 2 did not sanction leave to personnel working under him. Further, the evidence suggests that the work done by petitioner No. 2 was technical in nature as it included maintenance, repairs and erection of electrical plants, machineries, equipments and installations. The Labour Court has neither referred to nor considered the duties assigned to respondent No. 2 under the 1970 Order. Hence on consideration of the duties of petitioner No. 2 assigned to him under the 1970 Order and the evidence led before the Court, he must be held to be a 'workman' within the meaning of that expression as contained in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. As regards the second point regarding the claim of petitioner No. 2 to the designation and wage-scale of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the significance of the settlement, dated 11.9.1961 arrived at by the Management and the union prior to the coming into force of the 1970 Order. It appears that this settlement dated 11.9.1961 was filed before the Labour Court as Ext.E/3 and it has been referred to in paragraph 17 of the Award. However, the implications of the said settlement do not appear to have been considered by the Labour Court. A copy of the settlement dated 11.9.1961 has been filed in this Court by the petitioners along with affidavit. According to this settlement between the Management and the union, the petitioner who was then working as Electric Incharge was given the benefit of pay in the supervisory grade of Rs.200-15-275-E.B.-15-350 plus Rs.40 as D.A. with effect from 1.11.1960. The aforesaid scale of pay was admissible under the 1961 Order to workmen' belonging to the category Supervisory C which was one scale about the scale to which petitioner'No. 2 was actually entitled to as Electrical Incharge belonging to the category of highly skilled A'. The settlement is silent as to the period for which petitioner No. 2 would be entitled to draw the salary of one higher grade. It, therefore, fellow's that if the 1970 Order had not come into force, petitioner No. 2 would still be drawing salary in the scale of pay on one higher grade. The 1970 Order was brought into force for the purpose of revising the wage structure in the sugar industry. As already noted, the post held by petitioner No. 2 was redesignated as Foreman (Electrical) under the 1970 Order and the scale of pay is that of C Supervisory Grade C. Fixing the scale of pay of petitioner No. 2 in C Supervisory Grade C, in real terms does not give him any benefit under the revised wage structure brought into force by the 1970 Order and is not in keeping with the terms of the settlement dated 11.9.1961. At the same time it must be pointed out that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for redesignation of the post of Electrical Incharge to that of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II) and fitment in the wage-scale admissible to such Assistant Engineers under the 1970 Order. Also, there is nothing in the settlement dated 11.9.1961 justifying such claim. However, keeping in view the terms of the aforesaid settlement it must be held that on coming into force of the 1970. Order, the post held by the petitioner has, as provided in that order, been rightly classified as Foreman (Electrical), but by virtue of the settlement dated 11.9.1961 he would be entitled to draw salary at one grade above C Supervisory Grade C, i.e., C Supervisory Grade B in the scale of Rs.305-20-405-25-630. This benefit of higher scale of pay shall be admissible to petitioner No. 2 so long as he continues to work in the post of Foreman (Electrical) and shall cease to be payable from the date on which he receives promotion to the post next higher to Foreman (Electrical).
5. In the present case interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is necessary for the ends of justice as both the findings recorded by the Labour Court and referred to above, are unreasonable being based on incorrect and improper appraisal of the evidence and materials placed before it.
6. For reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed with costs and the impugned Award dated 30.5.1977 (Annexure 9) is quashed. It is held that petitioner No. 2 is a workman within the meaning of that expression as contained in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that though designated as Foreman (Electrical) under the 1970 Order, so long as he continues to work in the post of Foreman (Electrical), he shall be paid salary in the pay scale of C Supervisory Grade B as provided in the 1970 Order from the date the said Order came into force, It is clarified that if and when the petitioner earns his next promotion, the financial benefit under the settlement dated 11.9.1961 shall cease to be effective.
Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 300.
Petition partly allowed.