M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) THE General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi is the petitioner approaching this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Labour Court, Jullundur (Annexure P -3) whereby it had granted to Gurbachan Singh, respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3643/ - in a dispute raised under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act.)
(2.) THE jurisdiction of the Labour Court was invoked in this manner. Gurbachan Singh, respondent No 1 and Om Parkash were undisputably posted and working as Junior Cashiers in one and the same office of the Railways at Ferozepur. Undisputably Om Parkash was junior to Gurbachan Singh, respondent No. 1. While Om Parkash was workings as Junior Cashier the post under him was upgraded so as to fetch more pay. Om Parkash was allowed to continue on adhoc basis in that post even after its being upgraded. Subsequently when he was promoted as Senior Cashier on his own turn, he was allowed arrears of pay in the higher grade for the period he worked in the upgraded post on ad hoc basis. Obviously in his promoted post his pay was fixed at a higher level as compares with Gurbachan Singh respondent, though the seniority of Gurbachan Singh respondent vis a vis Om Parkash was ordered to be maintained In this anomalous situation Gurbachan Singh approached the Labour Court under section 33 C (2) of the Act claiming that he had been paid less wages than paid to Om Parkash through their expectancies of work output was the same. Before the Labour Court it was pleaded by the petitioner that the promotion of Om Parkash was just an ad hoc promotion to which Gurbachan Singh had never objected to nor had he made any representation in that regard To that Gurbachan Singh replied that he had never been apprised of such a position as otherwise he would have necessarily made a representation. Before the Labour Court no evidence was led by the petitioner to prove the assertion that the ad hoc promotion of Om Parkash had been brought to the notice of all concerned Even otherwise, the Labour Court took the view that ad hoc promotion as pleaded by the petitioners was violative of Rule 370 (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Railway Manual) and also since the extra wages paid to a junior for a period more than two years was contrary to what was envisaged in the aforesaid rule it would naturally create heart burning in the mind of a senior employee. Thus considering that Gurbachan Singh respondent had an existing right to sustain his claim, the award was made in his favour.
(3.) NOW by way of this petition, the petitioner General Manager has challenged the said award on the ground that claim of respondent No. 1 was not entertainable under section 33 -C (2) of the Act The second ground taken is that Gurbachan Singh respondent was not entitled to any extra wages, for he had never officiated or worked in the senior capacity or ever to have shouldered higher responsibility attaching to the senior post. Thirdly it is contended that Gurbachan Singh and Om Parkash were respectively working in different pay districts and the district in which Om Parkash had been working had alone been upgraded entitling him better pay. On the other hand it is maintained on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the question of pay district being separate, was never raised before the Labour Court and it was rather the undisputed case as pleaded by both the parties that both of them were working in one and the same office of the Railways at Ferozepore during the period in question it has also been maintained that it was never highlighted before the Labour Court that there was any higher responsibility attached to the post which was upgraded. Rather it has been admitted by Mr. Jain at the bar that the upgrading of the post herein only meant in terms of money, and that the work expected at the post which Om Parkash was manning continued to be the same as that of the post in which Gurbachan Singh respondent was serving Thus in such a situation it is idle to contend that there was any higher responsibility attached to the post upgraded Thus the main point to be settled in this petition is whether the claim of the kind put forth by Gurbachan Singh respondent was entertainable by the Labour Court under section 33 -C (2) of the Act.;