- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner, M/s Panki Thermal Power Station, Kanpur, seeks to challenge the award dated 31. 8. 1993 of the Labour Court (III), U. P. , Kanpur, declaring that the workman, V. K. Srivastava, was entitled to get the designation and pay of R. G. C. since June, 1973.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, Sri V. K. Srivastava, workman, was appointed as Daftari with effect from 1. 8. 1972 vide office memo No. PEB-55-2a/1423 in the petitioner's establishment which post he joined on 4. 8. 1972. Vide Office Memo dated 31. 3. 1978/4. 4. 1978, he was promoted as R. G. C. since 15. 3. 1978. According to the petitioner, vide order dated 20. 9. 1975, the workman was directed to help Sri P. S. Gupta, R. G. C. , in his work. It was specifically provided in the order dated 20. 9. 1975 that the entire responsibility for disposal of the work would be on Sri P. S. Gupta. After the aforesaid order was passed, the workman started helping Sri P. S. Gupta in his work till his actual promotion on the post of R. G. C. from 15. 3. 1978. The workman through the Union raised a dispute claiming pay and designation of R. G. C. with effect from June, 1973, which dispute was referred by the State Government under Section 4k of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Kanpur for adjudication. The industrial dispute, so referred, was subsequently amended vide order dated 6. 9. 1989. The following industrial dispute was referred: "kya SEWAYOJAKO DWARA APNE SHRAMIK VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA PUTRA SRI BHAGWATI PRASAD SRIVASTAVA KO USKE KARYA Kl PRAKRITI KEANUSAR JUNE 1973 SUB-SECTION R. G. C. KA PAD NAM WA TADNUSAR VETANMAN NA DIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ ATHAWA VAIDHANIK HAI? YADINAHI TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/anutosh (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVARAN SAHIT. " The petitioner filed its written statement and asserted that the workman V. K. Srivastava was appointed as Daftari with effect from 1. 8. 1972 and joined as such on 4. 8. 1972. Vide Office Memo dated 31. 3. 1978/4. 4. 1978, he was promoted as R. G. C. since 15. 3. 1978 and has been continuously working and drawing wage as such. The petitioner further asserted that the reference having been made after 11 years, the same was redundant and could not be adjudicated upon. In the additional written statement, the petitioner pleaded that the Union made an appli cation dated 21. 4. 1987 to the Conciliation Board on which reference dated 31. 3. 1989 was made and there being no new material, the State Government erred in making the amendment vide order dated 6. 9. 1989 in the reference. Ac cording to the petitioner, Sri P. P. Arora, the then Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 20. 9. 1975, directed the workman to help Sri P. S. Gupta, the then R. G. C. , working in the same office. According to the petitioner, the workman was directed to help Sri P. S. Gupta, R. G. C. and this could not be taken to mean that the work of R. G. C. was taken from the workman. It was pleaded that the workman was not entitled to the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Labour Court ignoring the material on record had given its award dated 31. 8. 1993, direct ing giving of pay and designation of R. G. C. since June, 1973 to the workman, which will put a heavy financial burden on the petitioner. The workman filed his counter affidavit admitting his appointment as Daftari since 4. 8. 1972. He stated that since June, 1973 he was performing the diary and dispatch work on the instruction of the authority, which work was done by a R. G. C. He asserted that he was doing the said work on the written order of the Executive Engineer, Sri P. P. Arora, dated 20. 9. 1975. He requested several times to give him the pay and designation of R. G. C. and subsequently made applica tions therefor. When his demand was not met by the petitioner, he raised the industrial dispute. It was stated that the Union moved the application for condona tion of delay to which the petitioner filed objections and after considering the matter, the Regional Conciliation Officer condoned the delay and the said order having not been challenged by the petitioner, the same has become final. The workman stated that from the oral and documentary evidence on record the Labour Court found that the petitioner was performing the diary and dispatch work, which is done by a R. G. C. and, therefore, he was rightly awarded the benefit from June, 1973.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the averments of the counter affidavit has been denied and those of writ petition have been reiterated. The Labour Court found that the amendment made by the State Govern ment in the reference was legal and valid. It further found that the delay was condoned by the Conciliation Board after considering the objection of the em ployer and the said order had become final as the employer did not challenge the same. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court found that the workman used to discharge the duties of R. G. C. On the basis of these findings, the Labour Court directed for giving of pay and designation to the workman from June, 1973.;