Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) MUNICIPAL Committee, Banga, through Lehmbar Singh, Secretary of the Committee, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of the award dated 11th March, 1968 made by Shri I.D. Pawar, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab. Chandigarh, published in the Punjab Gazette, dated March 15, 1968.
(2.) THE facts necessary to determine the controversy raised before me and as given in the petition, may briefly be stated thus: The petitioner is Municipal Committee, Banga, District Jullundur. It had employed 24 Octroi Moharrirs. All the Octroi Moharrirs were working on the administrative side of the clerical department of the Committee. Kewal Krishan, Sham Sunder, Gauri Shankar and Lal Chand four of the seniormost Octroi Moharrirs who had put in more than 15 years of service in the employment of the Committee, applied for the grant of a special concession in recognition of the length of their services. The Committee vide its resolution No. 5 9 dated 26th March, 1964, granted relief to all the said four persons by allowing them grade of Rs. 50 - -3 - -80. This action of the Committee offended the other Octroi Moharrirs who were not treated alike and on their approach, the Punjab Government vide Notification No. ID/5/186 -II -67/42944, referred the dispute between the employees of the Committee and the Committee itself to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, for adjudication under section 100) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute referred to was Whether the Octroi Moharrirs are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 50 - -3 - -80? If so, from what date and with what other details?. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, decided the matter in favour of the Octroi Moharrirs and made the award which was published in the Punjab Gazette dated March 15, 1968 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition). It is the legality and propriety of this award which has been challenged by way of this petition. Mr. P.S. Mano, learned counsel, raised the following two contentions: 1. That the Octroi Moharrirs were not -workmen and the dispute between the Municipal Committee and the Octroi Moharrirs did not partake the nature of an industrial dispute and as such it could not be referred for decision to the Industrial Tribunal 2. In any case the question of giving a special grade by the employer to some of its employees was not in nature of an industrial dispute which could be referred for decision to Industrial Tribunal.
(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Municipal Committee, Raikot, v. Ram Lal Jain, AIR 1965 p&h. 16. However, Mr. Mano, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the correctness of the Division Bench case on the basis of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Management of Safdar Jung Hospital, New Delhi v. Kuldip Singh Sethi : AIR 1970 S.C. 1407, and of the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Sabir Khan v. Municipal Council, Bhandara, 1970 Lab IC 588, It was also contended by Mr. Mann, learned counsel, that the correctness of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Its Employees : AIR 1960 SC 675 was considerably shaken in view of the decision in The Management of Safdar Jung Hospital's case : AIR 1970 S.C. 1407. On the other hand it was contended by Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for respondents 8 to 28, that the decision in The Corporation of the City of Nagpur's case : AIR 1960 SC 675 was still good law, that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Municipal Committee, Raikot's case, AIR 1965 p&h. 16 which was given on the basis of The Corporation of the City of Nagpur's case : AIR 1960 SC 675 laid down the correct law and that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Sabir Khan's case, 1970 Lab IC 588 was not correctly decided.;