Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Counsel for workman Respondent No. 3, Gulab Rai, who has argued the case without filing the counter affidavit.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 28.01.1997 passed by Presiding Officer labour court U.P. Bareilly in Misc. case No. 17 of 1991 Gulab Rai v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The case of the Respondent No. 3 before the labour court was that he had worked as carpenter in the regional workshop Bareilly of U.P.S.R.T.C. till 21.12.1988 and thereafter through letter dated 22.12.1980 he had been promoted on the post of in charge Body Section but he was continued to be paid the salary of only carpenter hence he must be paid the difference between the salary of in charge Body Section and of carpenter. The labour court held that workman was entitled to difference of salary amounting to Rs. 24,000/ -and odd as claimed by him. The Petitioner employer had contended that until and unless there was some adjudication regarding entitlement of the workman to the pay of In -charge Body Section, proceedings for recovery under Section 33C(2) were not maintainable as it was a case of determination of entitlement and not simply of computation. The labour court did not accept this plea. Copy of order dated 22.12.1980 was filed by the workman before the labour court. Unfortunately, its copy has not been annexed along with the writ petition. It appears that the order was signed by Junior Service Manager. However, firstly there is no finding that the order amounted to promotion. Secondly it was not proved that Junior Service Manager was authorised to promote a carpenter to the post of In -charge Body Section in such manner. It has also not been stated that what was the criteria of appointment or promotion to the post of In -charge Body Section. It is also not clear that for how much time the workman performed the alleged duties of In -charge Body Section.
(3.) IN any case it was a clear -cut case of promotion. Unless appropriate procedure was followed, promotion could not be made by the U.P.S.R.T.C, Petitioner employer. Neither it was stated by the workman that what was the procedure nor it was proved that the procedure was followed.;