- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Since in all writ petitions, common questions of law arise for consideration based on similar set of facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. I shall narrate the facts in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2785/1994 to the extent they are considered relevant and necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions.
(2.) THE petitioner is a Regional Rural Bank created under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The respondent No. 1 as Judge, Labour Court (Central), Jaipur and the respondent No. 2 at present is working as a Messenger with the petitioner-Bank. He filed an application before the respondent No. 1 U/section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') claiming a sum Rs. 21,791. 90 for the period between October 30, 1981 to April 30, 1987 claiming that that much amount has been paid less to him although he was entitled for the said amount i. e. by claiming regular pay scale for the aforesaid period. After receipt of the statement of petitioner-Bank filed a detailed reply resisting and opposing the claim made by the respondent No. 2 U/section 33-C (2) of the Act.
(3.) THE respondent No. 1 after recording evidence and considering the material placed before him passed the order dated November 22, 1993 allowing the application of the respondent No. 2 and gave direction to the petitioner-Bank to pay the amount claimed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner-Bank has challenged the said order of the respondent No. 1 in this writ petition. The respondent No. 2 has also filed reply to the writ petition justifying and supporting the order passed by the respondent No. 1.;