Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 17.10.1996 given by Presiding Officer (IV) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Dispute No.197 of 1996. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether action of employer petitioner of not giving the designation and pay scale of Dak Runner to its skilled baildar, Sri Durga Prasad was just and valid or not. The case of Durga Prasad was espoused by the Union, respondent No. 2, Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh, U.P. Kanpur. The case set up by the Union was that Durga Prasad was working as skilled baildar with the petitioner since 08.08.1982, he was intermediate pass and since 1984 the work of dak runner was being taken from him and his juniors were getting dak runner pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.1987.
(2.) The case of the petitioner employer was that Durga Prasad was daily wager temporary baildar and he was never promoted to the post of dak runner by any competent officer. The documentary evidence filed by the workman was a T.A. (Travelling Allowance) bill on which he was shown to be dak runner which was certified by Sri J.K. Agrawal, Assistant Engineer. Apart from it some attendance slips were also filed in which his designation was mentioned as dak runner. Certificate issued by one Sri P.P. Asthana was also filed showing that since June 1984 till November 1986, the workman worked on the post of dak runner. However in his oral statement (cross examination) the workman admitted that there was no written order appointing him on the post of dak runner and the work of dak runner was being taken from him by orders of Sri Asthana and Mohd. Jafar Habib, Assistant Engineer was taking the work of dak runner from him. On behalf of petitioner Sri Asthana, Junior Engineer was examined, who stated that during this period from 1979 till 1986, the workman never worked as dak runner and no oral or written direction in that regard was issued. He denied signatures on the certificate which had been filed by the workman. Mohd. Jafar Habib, Assistant Engineer was also examined on behalf of the employer, who also stated that the workman had never worked on the post of dak runner and he further stated that only through project manager or head quarter, certificate could be issued, however he admitted his signatures on one document at Serial No.14 in the list 18-B(2).
(3.) The dispute was raised in 1989. The labour court rejected the objection of the petitioner that the claim was for promotion and held that it was for designation. Regarding signature on the certificate, the labour court held that even though E.W.-1 had denied his signatures on the same, however prima facie they appeared to be his signatures. The photostat copies of T.A. bills etc. which were filed by the workman were admitted as secondary evidence on the ground that original had not been filed by the petitioner due to their non-applicability. Ultimately, labour court held that the work of dak runner was being taken from the workman hence he should be given designation and pay scale of the dak runner with effect from the date of reference i.e. 11.04.1990.;