V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges an order passed by the Labour Court II, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) on April 30, 1977 under Section 33C(2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 3477 to the first respondent (Jhagreshwar Prasad) for having worked as a clerk from April, 1971 to October, 1974. A copy of the order has been appended as Annexure I to the writ petition, The two petitioners are the U. P. State Electricity Board and the Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration, Kanpur.
(2.) Annexure 2 to the writ petition is a copy of the application made by the first respondent under Section 33 C (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (for brief, the Act). The first respondent asserted therein that he was appointed as a coolie in the year 1969 but in reality he had worked as a clerk from the year 1971 to 1974 as required by the petitioners. He was, consequently, entitled to receive salary of a clerk at varying rates from different dates. The applicant, according to the allegation made in paragraph 5 of the application, ought to have been put in the category mentioned therein but had wrongly been treated to be in lower category which also was mentioned therein. In the succeeding paragraph, the allegation made was that the applicant was entitled to higher rate of salary of the correct category and was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3560/30 as arrears mentioned in Annexure A to the application. In the next paragraph of the application, it was alleged that the applicant was also entitled to the arrears of overtime and bonus at higher rate of salary as per annexure A. It was then stated that since in spite of the repeated requests, the petitioners had not given him the amount to which the applicant was entitled, the Labour Court may be pleased to inquire into the application and determine the amount due to the applicant.
(3.) The petitioners filed a reply to the application aforesaid in which it was asserted by them that while it was admitted that the applicant was appointed as a coolie, he was not entitled to any payment at the scale of pay of clerk or of any arrears of the overtime or bonus as such. The applicant had already been paid in the scale of coolie and all the benefits to which he was entitled in that category. In paragraph 10 of the reply, it was asserted that the applicant had approached the conciliation machinery of the U. P. Labour Department for claiming designation of a clerk in the C. B. case while in the next paragraph it was said that the claim made by the applicant was not maintainable under Section 33C(2) of Act.;