S.N.Srivastava - (1.) -Challenge in this petition and the connected petitions is centered on award dated 6.4.2000 rendered in Adjudication Case No. 16 of 1998 by Labour Court IV, U. P. Kanpur which was published on 29.6.2000. By this award, it would appear, the labour court aforesaid gave verdict on the reference made by the State Government directing to treat the workman as Junior Staff Officer F-Grade with effect from 31.7.91 alongwith wages in the scale of Rs. 1,900-3,225 attended with designation of that grade and also the other emoluments admissible to that grade.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the dispute involved in the Writ Petition No. 44294 of 2000, which is treated to be the pivotal petition is that the petitioner entered the service as clerk and was deployed in wages section and subsequently, he was transferred to work as clerk at the main gate on 31.7.1991. One K. P. Chaurasia who was working as Junior Staff Grade F-Grade retired from service on 31.7.1991 and according to the workman since he was discharging function hitherto performed by Sri K. P. Chaurasia after his retirement, he is entitled to get salary as well as promotional grade. He raised Industrial Dispute which was referred by the State Government vide Government order dated 31.1.1998 in the labour court and the reference made was whether the employers are liable to pay salary to the petitioner as admissible to the post of Junior Staff Grade F alongwith arrears and other emoluments and whether non-payment of the aforesaid wages is illegal if not what relief the petitioner is entitled to get. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at prolix length and have also delved into the materials on record. Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that Raj Kumar Sharma workman, Opp. party No. 2 was never promoted as Junior Staff Grade F attended with further submission that he was working as clerk in the wages section and he was subsequently transferred as clerk to look after the work at the main gate. He further canvassed that a similar dispute was raised by one Ram Autar Dwivedi who also was serving in the clerk cadre, claiming right of promotion and emoluments admissible to the post of Junior Staff Grade F but his claim in Adjudication Case No. 108 of 1984 was disallowed by the labour court vide award dated 15.10.1997. He further canvassed that Ram Autar Dwivedi ranked senior to Raj Kumar Sharma. He further canvassed that the petitioner Mill was closed down in the year 1994 and ever since then no production has been made in the bill followed by submission that petitioner has already given marching orders under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and his matter relating to salary etc. has already been processed and drawn by the opp. party No. 2 which according to learned counsel means final acceptance of all pending dues by the opp. party No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also canvassed that there is no rule or regulation in existence under which the opp. party No. 2 can claim entitlement to promotion in the post and further that the opp. party No. 2 was never considered for promotion nor was ever given any promotion and by this reckoning, proceeds the submission, he is not entitled to get any salary of the post of Junior Staff F-Grade. It is further submitted that the labour court erred in law in rendering award without there being any appointment or promotion of the opp. party. It is also submitted that while considering the case of opp. party, the labour court eschewed from consideration the number of persons senior to respondent No. 2 who were serving in the Mill attended with further submission that there is no post in existence like Junior Staff Grade F and further that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner was ignored by the labour court while rendering the award leaning in favour of opp. party No. 2. The learned counsel also adverted attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner has been declared as Sick Industry under the Sick Industrial Companies Act. The learned counsel also drew attention of the Court to the pleading contained in Para 20 of the written statement filed before the labour court pointing out that the pay scale of the clerical staff was Rs. 120-565 while the pay scale fixed for supervisor was Rs. 1,620-3010 and again pay scale for Junior Officer was Rs. 1,902 to 3,225 and the labour court without considering this aspect that no appointment or promotion was made wrongly converged to the decision leaning in favour of the opp. party No. 2 that he was entitled to salary of higher post without any right. Per contra, learned counsel for the opp. parties contended that Sri K. P. Chaurasia retired from service on 21.7.91 and thereafter he was transferred to the main gate to perform the function being performed by Sri K. P. Chaurasia and as such he shall be deemed to have discharged the function of Sri K. P. Chaurasia at the main gate and by this reckoning, the opp. party No. 2 is entitled to get salary and other emoluments admissible to the post held by Sri K. P. Chaurasia.
(3.) THE undisputed facts as crystallizing from the submissions and materials on record are that in the year 1994, the petitioner mill stopped making production and consequently, it was declared sick company and thereafter number of workers including petitioner opted for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. THEre is no denying of the fact that the petitioner had also opted for voluntary retirement and after accepting the same, he made a somersault and demanded difference of wages which he would have been entitled, had he been treated as having been promoted in place of Sri K. P. Chaurasia. The other connected cases is Writ Petition No. 49987 which has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be commanded to provide the amount under the V. R. S. with interest on the date on which other employees received the amount i.e., July, 2001. In this writ petition, this Court issued ad interim mandamus to the respondents to pay the amount due to the petitioner by reason of acceptance of V.R.S. within two months from the date of production of the order. Another writ petition is Writ Petition No. 8637 of 2001, which was filed by Elgin Mills in which challenge is to the impugned order dated 7.2.2001 and also to recovery pursuant to the impugned order. This Court in this writ petition passed certain interim orders. Another writ petition is Writ Petition No. 43628 of 2001, which was filed by Raj Kumar Sharma for a writ of mandamus to enforce recovery certificate dated 1.3.2001 and 30.8.2001. All the writ petitions have been clubbed together.;