General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi vs Gurbachan Singh and others

M.M. Punchhi, J.—The General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi is the petitioner approaching this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Labour Court, Jullundur (Annexure P-3) whereby it had granted to Gurbachan Singh, respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3643/- in a dispute raised u/s 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act.)

The jurisdiction of the Labour Court was invoked in this manner. Gurbachan Singh, respondent No 1 and Om Parkash were undisputably posted and working as Junior Cashiers in one and the same office of the Railways at Ferozepur. Undisputably Om Parkash was junior to Gurbachan Singh, respondent No. 1. While Om Parkash was workings as Junior Cashier the post under him was upgraded so as to fetch more pay. Om Parkash was allowed to continue on adhoc basis in that post even after its being upgraded. Subsequently when he was promoted as Senior Cashier on his own turn, he was allowed arrears of pay in the higher grade for the period he worked in the upgraded post on ad hoc basis. Obviously in his promoted post his pay was fixed at a higher level as compares with Gurbachan Singh respondent, though the seniority of Gurbachan Singh respondent vis a vis Om Parkash was ordered to be maintained In this anomalous situation Gurbachan Singh approached the Labour Court u/s 33 C (2) of the Act claiming that he had been paid less wages than paid to Om Parkash through their expectancies of work output was the same.

Before the Labour Court it was pleaded by the petitioner that the promotion of Om Parkash was just an ad hoc promotion to which Gurbachan Singh had never objected to nor had he made any representation in that regard To that Gurbachan Singh replied that he had never been apprised of such a position as otherwise he would have necessarily made a representation. Before the Labour Court no evidence was led by the petitioner to prove the assertion that the ad hoc promotion of Om Parkash had been brought to the notice of all concerned Even otherwise, the Labour Court took the view that ad hoc promotion as pleaded by the petitioners was violative of Rule 370 (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Railway Manual) and also since the extra wages paid to a junior for a period more than two years was contrary to what was envisaged in the aforesaid rule it would naturally create heart burning in the mind of a senior employee. Thus considering that Gurbachan Singh respondent had an existing right to sustain his claim, the award was made in his favour.

Now by way of this petition, the petitioner General Manager has challenged the said award on the ground that claim of respondent No. 1 was not entertainable u/s 33-C (2) of the Act The second ground taken is that Gurbachan Singh respondent was not entitled to any extra wages, for he had never officiated or worked in the senior capacity or ever to have shouldered higher responsibility attaching to the senior post. Thirdly it is contended that Gurbachan Singh and Om Parkash were respectively working in different pay districts and the district in which Om Parkash had been working had alone been upgraded entitling him better pay. On the other hand it is maintained on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the question of pay district being separate, was never raised before the Labour Court and it was rather the undisputed case as pleaded by both the parties that both of them were working in one and the same office of the Railways at Ferozepore during the period in question it has also been maintained that it was never highlighted before the Labour Court that there was any higher responsibility attached to the post which was upgraded. Rather it has been admitted by Mr. Jain at the bar that the upgrading of the post herein only meant in terms of money, and that the work expected at the post which Om Parkash was manning continued to be the same as that of the post in which Gurbachan Singh respondent was serving Thus in such a situation it is idle to contend that there was any higher responsibility attached to the post upgraded Thus the main point to be settled in this petition is whether the claim of the kind put forth by Gurbachan Singh respondent was entertainable by the Labour Court u/s 33-C (2) of the Act.

As far as I know one of the settled principles of Industrial Law is equal pay for equal work. As said before undisputable both Gurbachan Singh respondent and Om Parkash gave out put of equal and similar work, On that principle Gurbachan Singh ordinarily would be entitled to the same pay as given to Om Parkash. Yet to put the record straight on foundation of law it is worth noticing that in The The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., (at page 748,) the Supreme Court observed as follows:--

In our opinion, on a fair and reasonable construction of sub-section (2) it is clear that if a workman''s right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the Labour Court. Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money, the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit........ The claim u/s 33 C (2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in son cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court by section (2).

The view afore-quoted was reiterated in later cases by the Supreme Court to which special attention need not be invited

Now in the instant case the Labour Court in order to grant relief to Gurbachan Singh respondent took into account the violation of rule 320 (a) of the Railway Manual:--

320 Seniority on promotion to non selection posts: --

(a) Promotion to non selection posts shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, suitability being judged by the authority competent to fill the pest, by oral and/or written test or a departmental examination or a fade test as considered necessary and the record of service The only exception to this would be in cases where for administrative convenience, which should be recorded in writing, the competent authority considers it necessary to appoint a railway servant to officiate in a short term vacancy not exceeding two months as a rule and four months in any case. This will, however, not give the railway servant any advantage not otherwise due to him........

Intimately connected therewith is Rule 212 providing for non-selection posts. It provides as follows: --

212 Non selection posts:--

(a) Non selection posts will be filled by promotion of the senior most suitable railway servant, suitability, whether of an individual or a group of railway servants, being determined by the authority competent to fill the posts on the basis of the record of service and/or departmental tests, if necessary. A senior employee may be passed over only if he/she has been declared unfit for holding the post in question

(b) When, in filling a non-selection post, a senior railway servant is passed ever, the authority making the promotion shall record briefly the reason for such supersession.

Now even if it is taken that on upgrading the post in terms of money it had become a promotion post to which an employee had to be promoted, it is obvious that the so called promotion of Om Parkash was violative of rules 320 and 212 of the Railway Manual But in the same breath it must be settled at rest that no question was ever raised before the labour Court in that regard by the railway authorities that the post was a promotion post. Rather on the contrary it was their case before the Labour Court that on the upgrading of the post Om Parkash was allowed to work there on ad hoc basis as a Junior Cashier. The question of his promotion arose later when he was promoted as a Senior Cashier, but be was given the credit of having worked in the upgraded post for the period in question as a Junior Cashier. It is in this anomolous situation that Gurbachan Singh respondent No. 1 had successfully pleaded and proved before the Labour Court that an existing right of his has been violated and as such he was entitled to have his claim computed in money. Such a claim would obviously fall within the purview of section 33-C (2) of the Act and in particular due to the interpretation put to it by the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India Ltd., case (supra) The two cited cases Management of the Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Another, and Natarajan (R.) and another v. Lakshmi Mills Company, Ltd, Coimbatore 1964 (ii) L.L.J. 296 have no bearing on the question even remotely. Worse still is State Bank of India Vs. Parkash Chand Mehra, which is not even a case u/s 33 C (2) of the Act.

No other point has been urged.

From the resume of the above it is plain that the Labour Court exercised jurisdiction in the exclusive domain of industrial matters and industrial peace. Thus I can find no error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of jurisdiction shocking the conscience of this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Equally I can find no-injustice, much less manifest injustice, perpetrated against the petitioner in the exercise of such jurisdiction. Thus I have no hesitation to hold that it is not a case for interference by this Court.

Accordingly for the view above taken, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.