Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. to provide the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 to the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1986 and pay him the arrears of the difference in salary. A further prayer has been made for a direction to promote the petitioner on the post of Liaison Officer.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the decision of this case are that in the year 1973, the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Chemist in the Amroha Sugar Mills of the respondent U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Admittedly by the order dated 30.5.1985 passed by the General Manager of the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., the petitioner was designated as Liaison Assistant in the same pay scale and was attached to the General Section to look after the liaison and public relation work of the factory as well as project work. Subsequently, on 3.12.1987, the respondent-Corporation redesignated the petitioner as Laboratory Chemist in the same scale. On the passing of the aforesaid order the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 13 of 1992 with the Labour Court, U. P. at Rampur. By its award dated 30.1.1993 the labour court held that the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation, that the petitioner was designated as Liaison Assistant on trial basis, was not correct. It was also held that the reversion/restoration of the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Chemist was neither proper nor legal. The post of Laboratory Chemist, on which the petitioner was earlier working was a seasonal post, whereas on re-designation as Liaison Assistant, the petitioner became a regular employee, although the pay scale remained the same. The labour court thus directed the respondent-Corporation to restore back the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 3.12.1987 and also to pay him all the consequential benefits. The contention of the petitioner is that after having been designated as Liaison Assistant he was entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, for after being designated as Liaison Assistant, the petitioner ceased to be an employee covered under the Sugar Wage Board. The petitioner thus claims that he would be entitled to the benefit of the circular of the State Government dated 6.9.1989 in this regard.
(3.) I have heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh Tiwari, on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and have perused the record.;