Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) INSPITE of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1. This writ petition is directed against award dated 27.03.1995 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (III) U.P. Kanpur in adjudication case No. 121 of 1990. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of Petitioner employer of not giving the designation and pay scale of Specialist Gr -I to its workman Respondent No. 1 (Semi skilled labour) was just and valid or not. The labour court in substance gave the award in favour of the workman. The labour court even though held that it could not grant promotion directly as it would adversely affect the interest of other deserving workmen (Respondent No. 1 being at serial No. 8 in the seniority list) however it further held that Ram Nath Special Grade -I had retired a year before and Petitioner was performing his duties hence he must be paid the difference of salary of Specialist Grade -I and Semi skilled worker. Through interim order dated 08.08.1996 operation of impugned award was stayed until further order.
(3.) WHAT the labour court has done is in fact grant of promotion to Specialist Grade I to Respondent No. 1 who was semi skilled labour. The next category is of skilled and thereafter of specialist and the last category is Specialist Grade -I. I have discussed these aspects in two of my judgments the first of which is Writ Petition No. 4808 of 1990 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Central Workshop Kanpur v. Nanhey Lal and Ors. Writ Petition No. 4808 of 1990 decided on 03.10.2006 and the other is Writ Petition No. 31870 of 1991 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Central Workshop Kanpur v. Mohd. Saleem and Ors. Writ Petition No. 31870 of 1991 dated 21.5.2009.;