UDAY SINHA, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals in Letter Patent against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India L.P.A. 51 of 1988, arises out of C.W.J.C. 1370 of 1986 and L.P.A. 52 of 1988 arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 970 of 1986. The Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter called the Board, is the appellant in both the appeals. The sole respondent in L.P.A. 51 of 1988, is the Central Secretary of Bihar Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union. The respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. 52 of 1988. claims to be the General Secretary of Bihar State Electricity Supply Workers Union and respondent No. 2 is a workman of the Board. Both writ applications were heard together as they covered common grounds. The two appeals, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) TWO questions have been hotly contested at the bar in these appeals. The first is what was the award of the Industrial Tribunal in regard to payment of dearness allowance to the workman. The second question is whether this Court can grant in a writ application what was denied to several workmen by the Labour Court regularly in a proceeding under Sec. 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which had become final.
(3.) BY notification dated 6th April, 1983, a reference was made to the Industrial Disputes Act. The matters referred for adjudications, were the following: Whether the pay scales of the workman of the Bihar State Electricity Board should be revised? If so, what should be the pay scales of the different categories of workman and from which date the same should be implemented? 3. Whether the workman of the Bihar State Electricity Board should be given dearness allowance at Central rates? If so, from which date? 2. Whether the workman of the Bihar State Electricity Board are entitled to get the pay and allowances admissible in accordance with the recommendation of the second Wage Board for the period from 1.4.1975 to 31.3.1979 as per item No. 5 of the tripartite settlement dated 14.6.1977? If so, what shall be the amount of the same? In regard to the first question the Tribunal held that the pay scales of the workman should be revised and that it should be implemented with effect from 1.4.1983. In regard to the third question, the Tribunal held that the workmen were entitled to receive the arrears of pay and allowances in terms of the recommendation of the second Wage Board from 1.4.1975 to 31.3.1979. The award on the first and third points were never challenged by the Board nor they have been challenged in these appeals. The only controversial question is the dearness allowance awarded by the Tribunal. At paragraph 52 the Tribunal recorded as follows: It may be pointed out that all the employees of the Board including the Officers are equally hit by the rising trend in prices of commodities in asmuch as all of them have to face the same common market. If the Officers of the Board getting higher pay scales can be allowed D.A., at Central rates there seems to be no apparent reason why workmen getting much lower pay scales should not be allowed the same when actually they have to face the pinch of rising prices more than the officers do. If the officers can be allowed higher percentage of neutralisation there seems to be no earthly reason why the workmen should not be given the same percentage of neutralisation if not more. At paragraph 64 it recorded as follows: (ii) That the workman of the Bihar State Electricity Board should be given dearness allowance at the Central rates. Date of payment of D.A. at Central Rates shall be the same as fixed for implementation of revised pay scales i.e., 1.4.1983. From the above two parts of the award question arises what did the Tribunal award. Did it award dearness allowance at Central rates as admissible to officers of the Board or it awarded only dearness allowance at Central rates to the workmen.;