Ashok Bhushan - (1.) -These two writ petitions have been filed against the same order of the labour court dated 31.8.1993 and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE first writ petition has been filed by U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) challenging the order dated 31.8.1993 passed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allowing the application filed by the workman, Swami Nath. Brief facts necessary for deciding both the writ petitions are : Swami Nath, petitioner in the second writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was working as Conductor in the Corporation. He was engaged in 1956 and was working as Conductor on 1.7.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 185-265. With effect from 1.7.1979 the pay scale was revised on Rs. 335- 495. After completion of 10 years service the Conductors were entitled for the higher pay scale of Rs. 425- 545 and again after further completion of 10 years service they were entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 510-640. The claim of the workman was that although he has completed 20 years of service in 1976 and was entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 510-640 with effect from 1.7.1979, he was not given the said pay scale. An application under Section 33C (2) was filed claiming difference of salary to which he was entitled amounting to Rs. 79,093.14P. The claim of the workman was resisted by the Corporation. The Corporation's case was that the workman was given an adverse entry in 1986-87, hence he was not entitled for the higher pay scale. The labour court vide its order impugned has allowed the application of the workman from 1.7.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-545 and from 1.7.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 510-640. The said order has been challenged by the Corporation and the workman. Learned counsel for the Corporation, challenging the order, contended that the application filed by the workman was not maintainable under Section 33C (2). He contends that the case required adjudication of the entitlement of the workman, hence the application was liable to be rejected. He placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in State of U. P. and another v. Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58 : 2005 (6) AWC 5980 (SC) ; State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and others, (2001) 1 SCC 73 : 2001 (1) AWC 215 (SC) and a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U. P. and others, 2002 (93) FLR 410 : 2002 (4) AWC 2751. He further contends that the workman having awarded an adverse entry which fact has been noted by the labour court, the labour court passed an inconsistent order in so far as it recorded finding that adverse entry was not relevant for denying the higher pay scale whereas he granted the higher pay scale from 1.7.1990 instead of 1.7.1989 when he would have completed 10 years period.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the workman in support of his writ petition contended that workman was entitled for pay scale of Rs. 510- 640 from 1.7.1989 and the labour court wrongly gave the said benefit from 1.7.1990. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record.;