B.N.Misra, J. - (1.) The union and the concerned workman Baksha Singh have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the Award, dated 30.5.1977, passed by the Labour Court, Meerut whereby it has been held that petitioner No. 2 is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that he was not entitled to the designation and wage-scale of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II).
(2.) Facts of the case may be briefly stated. Petitioner No. 2 was an employee under M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Unit Mohiuddinpur, district Meerut, respondent No. 2. His wage structure and wage fixation were governed by the State Government Notification No. 2309 (ST.)/XXXVI-A-273 (S.T.)-1960, dated 27.4.1961. His designation was Electric In-charge and although under 1961 Order he belonged to the category of 'highly skilled A' workman entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 180-8- 220-E.B.-1O-270, by virtue of a settlement (Ext. E/3), dated 11.9.1961, between the Management and the union, he was paid salary in the scale of Rs. 200-15-275-E.B.-l5-350 admissible to Workshop Foreman I belonging to Supervisory C grade. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Second Wage Board, the State Government revised the wage structure in the sugar industry, vide Government Notification No. 10397 (HI)/XXXVI-C-83 (HI)-70, dated 27.11.1970. The post of Electric Incharge held by petitioner No. 2 was changed to 'Foreman (Electrical)' under the 1970 Order and the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs.255-15-390-20-490 admissible to C Supervisory staff in Grade C. Petitioner No. 2 raised a claim that he was entitled to be designated as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II) under the 1970 Order. His claim was espoused by the union and after failure of conciliation proceedings, the State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 4.7.1972. "KYA SEWAYOJAKGN DWARA SHRI BAKSHA SINGH (ATMAJ SHRI HUKUM SINGH) ELECTRIC INCHARGE KO ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (SUPERVISORY A-2) KA PAD WO VETANKRAM D1YA JANA CHAHIYE? YADI HAN TO KIS TITHI SE AUR ANYA KIN SHARTON KE SATH?" Parties appeared before the Labour Court, filed written statements and adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Vide its Award dated 30.5.1977 (Annexure 9) the Labour Court held that petitioner No. 2 was not a 'workman' within the meaning of that expression as contained in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he was not entitled to the designation and wage-scale of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Supervisory A-II).
(3.) Both the findings of the Labour Court are under challenge in this writ petition. On the question whether petitioner No. 2 was a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a 'workman' must be set aside as it is based on an incorrect appraisal of the duties of petitioner No. 2 assigned to him as contained in the 1970 Order and as supported by the evidence led before the Labour Court. This question has been considered by the Labour Court in paragraphs 5 to 13 of its Award. The duties of petitioner No. 2 as Electric Incharge under the 1961 Order have been extracted in paragraph 8 of the Award. They are reproduced hereunder: "Responsible for efficient operation, maintenance, repairs and erection of electrical plants, machineries, equipments and installation and control of personnel under him subject to the overall control of the Chief Engineer. He is incharge of all the three shifts". The duties of petitioner No. 2 assigned to him under the 1970 Order as Foreman (Electrical) which have not been extracted in the Award and perhaps not considered by the Labour Court, are also reproduced hereunder: "Responsible for operation, maintenance, repairs and erection of electrical plants machineries, equipments and installation in the general shift under the guidance of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) or independently, and doing works incidental thereto. The changes in the duties under 1961 Order and 1970 Order are noteworthy and the most important change is that while under the 1961 Order the duties assigned to petitioner No. 2 included 'control of personnel under him' subject to the overall control of the Chief Engineer and he was incharge of all the three shifts, under 1970 Order he has not been given any control over personnel under him nor has he been put incharge of all the three shifts. His work is confined to the general shift. In regard to his duties the earlier statement of petitioner No. 2 before the Labour Court on 25.1.1974 and his subsequent statement on 26.6.1976 are not so discrepant as to reject the latter altogether. The changes in his duties brought about by the 1970 order, his evidence and that of Om Prakash do not at all lead to the conclusion that the duties of petitioner No. 2 were mainly supervisory. As already noted, personnel working under him were not at all under his control and Om Prakash has stated that petitioner No. 2 did not sanction leave to personnel working under him. Further, the evidence suggests that the work done by petitioner No. 2 was technical in nature as it included maintenance, repairs and erection of electrical plants, machineries, equipments and installations. The Labour Court has neither referred to nor considered the duties assigned to respondent No. 2 under the 1970 Order. Hence on consideration of the duties of petitioner No. 2 assigned to him under the 1970 Order and the evidence led before the Court, he must be held to be a 'workman' within the meaning of that expression as contained in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.";