S.S.SUDHALKAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the order dated 9.6.1999 (copy Annexure P/1) of the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act) vide which it awarded Rs. 19,092/ - to respondent No. 1 for the arrears of the increments from 7/93 to 12/96.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was temporary/casual employee and he was not entitled to increment and, therefore, the Labour Court has gone beyond the jurisdiction conferred to it under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act. Claim made by the respondent was for the arrears of the increments from 1.1.1986. The Labour Court has awarded the same from 7/93. The Labour Court in its judgment has observed that "surprisingly the workman has been granted the regular grade from 7/93 till today." If the workman was regular then the Labour Court award was not said to be wrong. The Labour Court has not awarded any amount for the period prior to 7/93. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was not regular employee from 7/93. In the writ petition, pleading regarding this question is in para 6. It is as under : "That the learned Labour Court is erred on the fact that respondent workman has claimed the computation of the arrears of annual increments from 1.1.86 to 31.12.1996 and that the learned Labour Court partly accepting the claim Annexure P/1 of respondent workman order for payment on account or arrears of increments from 7/93 till 12/96 ignoring the fact that respondent was a casual Beldar during the whole period of 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 and while granting the respondent Annual Increments from 7/93 to 12/96 nothing particular is taken into consideration." ;