S.D.Khare, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that by means of a writ in the nature of certiorari the order dated 26th May, 1964, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Kanpur, be quashed and he may be directed not to proceed with the further hearing of Miscellaneous Case No. 63 of 1963 started by Opposite Party No. 1 against the Resident Engineer of the petitioner company.
(2.) This petition was filed in the year 1964 when the petitioner company being an undertaking for the supply of electricity in the City of Allahabad, was doing its business here, Shri Mohammad Ghaus, Opposite Party No. 1, was employed by the petitioner company as a draughtsman and was placed in the grade of Rs. 110-8-150 - EB-160-10-200. The petitioner company had refused to allow him to cross the efficiency bar on the ground of his unfitness. The claim of Opposite Party No. 1, however, was that he should have been allowed to draw salary in the scale of Rs. 150-10-200 without the operation of any efficiency bar as he had been wrongfully detained at that stage for a long number of years without any just cause.
(3.) There were several electricity undertakings run by Messrs. Martin and Co. Ltd. and the petitioner company was one of them. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh appointed the U. P. Labour Enquiry Committee, more popularly known as Nimbkar Committee, on the question of the revision of scales and wages of pay in the electricity undertakings run by Messrs. Martin and Co. Ltd. The recommendations of the aforesaid Committee were ordered to be implemented by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour Department, under Order No. 317 (L)/XVIII dated March 15, 1948. The Government also appointed a Conciliation Board by its Order No. 1366 (TD)/ XVIII-103 (ST)/48, dated July 2, 1948, whose Chairman was Shri R. S. Nimbkar, and the other members of the Board were Mr. R. Robinson for the employers and Shri B. K, Mukerji, M.L.A., for the employees for the purposes of deciding all points arising out of or involving the interpretation of any of the provisions of the Government Order dated March 15, 1948. The findings arrived at by the Conciliation Board were enforced by the Government of Uttar Pradesh by its Labour Department Notification No. 1809(TD)(1)/XVIII-103 (TD)/48, dated 11th August, 1948, issued under sub-section (2) of Section 6 read -with Sections 3 and 21 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award of the Conciliation Board was to bind the undertaking and its employees for a period of six months from the date of the order in the first instance but was to remain in force for such longer period as the Government may prescribe. By a subsequent award the previous recommendations of the Nimbkar Committee were clarified and it was held that the draughtsman at Allahabad was entitled to get the grade fixed by the Nimbkar Committee's recommendations. The grade was Rs. 110-8-150-EB-160-10-200. Although the Government of Uttar Pradesh did not by any subsequent order extend the enforceability of the award, the workmen in the Allahabad undertaking continued to be paid salaries according to the scales prescribed under the said award. The Opposite Party No. 1, Shri Mohammad Ghaus, was getting a salary of Rs. 150 per month in the year 1948. However, he could not cross the efficiency bar. The petitioner company on several representations made by him took the view that his quality of work was not satisfactory and therefore, they were not prepared to let him cross the efficiency bar. The last representation made by Opposite Party No, 1 was rejected by the petitioner company on the 31st of January, 1963. Thereafter Shri Mohammad Ghaus filed an application under the provisions of Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the same was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 63 of 1963. In that application he stated that the employers had illegally and without jurisdiction withheld the increments due to him from 1-4-49 and the employers by not allowing him to cross the efficiency bar since the year 1949 had acted unfairly and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He claimed that up to 1-8-1963 he was entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 7,450 as his wages (vide Annexure D to the petition). The petitioner company took preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the aforesaid application under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It took the stand that there was no award or settlement under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of which an application under Section 6-H (2) of the Act could be entertained. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (I), Kanpur, by his order dated 26th May, 1964, rejected the preliminary objection. Hence this petition.;