Hafed vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - Labour Court

N.K. Sodhi, J.—C.M.No. 9792 of 1994 filed by Respondent No. 2 for the vacation of ex parte stay order came up for hearing on July 17, 1995 but counsel for both the parties made a request that instead of disposing of the application the main writ petition be decided. The request was granted and the main case taken on board for final disposal.

Raghbir Singh Respondent No. 2 had been working as Fitter - cum - Welder on daily wages with the Cattle Feed Plant, Rohtak which is unit of Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh (for short, the management). The qualification prescribed for the post was that a candidate should be I.T.I. trained with some experience. Since the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, the General Manager recommended his case for regularisation of his service in a lower pay scale. The recommendation was accepted and by letter dated March 20, 1986 the respondent was appointed as Fitter-cum-Welder in the scale of Rs. 300-450. It may be mentioned that the scale for the post of Welder was Rs. 480-760. The respondent accepted the appointment and joined his duties. Thereafter, he demanded from the management the regular pay scale of the post i.e., Rs. 480-760 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The representations made by the respondent were rejected by the management. The workmen then approached the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) claiming the difference in the pay scale. It was pleaded that he was entitled to the monetary benefit that was capable of being computed in terms of money as according to the workman the other Fitters-cum-Welders were being paid the higher scale of Rs. 480- 760.

On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the management contested the application and challenged its jurisdiction to entertain the same. On merits the claim of the workman was denied. After recording evidence of the parties, the Labour-cum- Welder he was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1,200/-per month. Consequently, the application was allowed and the workman was given the grade of Rs. 1500/- per month though he had demanded Rs. 1,200/- and he was also held entitled to the arrears of Rs. 28,210/-. It is this order that has been challenged by the management in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

I have heard counsel for the parties at length. It is not disputed that the services of the workman were regularised as Fitter-cum-Welder in the year 1986 and he was given a lower pay scale because he did not possess the requisite qualification for the post. If he felt aggrieved by this action of the management he could have challenged the same in some appropriate proceedings. Instead of doing that, he approached the Labour Court claiming difference in salary. It is well settled that proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and the workman can have only a pre-existing or a previously adjudicated/recognised right of his confirmed through the Labour Court in such proceedings. So long as the order of the management granting him lower pay scale is not set aside in appropriate proceedings, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to compute the monetary benefit as claimed by the workman. His claim for higher pay scale has to be determined by a competent Court/authority and it is only thereafter that the same could be executed in proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. Since the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workman to claim the benefit is being disputed and the right of the workman not having been adjudicated, the application filed by him before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Act was misconceived and not maintainable. I have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the impugned order. The view I have taken finds support from the decision of the Apex Court in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workman and Anr. (1975 I LJ 17) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh and Anr. (1995ILJ 95).

p>5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Labour Court set aside leaving, the parties to bear their own costs. It is, however, made clear that it would be open to the workman to claim the higher pay scale in any appropriate proceedings/forum in accordance with law.