- (1.) THE petitioner-herein has sought a direction for issuance of a writ or any other direction that he should be granted semi permanent status as a Store- Munshi and all arrears of salary for the post of Store-Munshi should be paid to him.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner had been appointed as a Beldar on daily wages and his services were terminated after which a reference was initiated in regard to his termination which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute as to whether his termination was legal or illegal. The petitioner succeeded before the Labour Court and an award was passed in his favour that his termination from the post of Beldar was not in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence he was reinstated in service as Beldar. This award was challenged by the respondents before the learned Single Judge of this High Court which was heard by the ten Acting Chief Justice Shri M. G. Mukherjee. His Lordship while upholding the award of the Tribunal for reinstatement also directed for payment of back wages to the petitioner for the post of Beldar, but it was further held therein that in so far as other disputes in regard to the petitioner's claim meaning thereby his claim for absorption on the post of Store Munshi was concerned, he would be at liberty to approach the Conciliation Officer ad in case the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter may be referred for adjudication in accordance with law. Thus, the dispute regarding termination of the petitioner from the post of Beldar although was set at rest, the dispute as to whether the could be absorbed on the post of Store-Munshi was still not settled as it was left open to be adjudicated before the Conciliation officer by initiating a fresh proceeding. The petitioner's grievance is that thereafter he had been functioning on the post of Store-Munshi and yet he was not allowed to draw the salary of Store-Munshi and therefore he filed this writ petition claiming the relief stated hereinbefore. The counsel for the respondents Mr. Karan Pal Singh seriously objected the claim of the petitioner by contending that the petitioner was never absorbed as a Store-Munshi since it was left open for conciliation and reference. Thus, the bone of contention herein is whether the petitioner who has no formal order in his favour that he was ever appointed on the post of Store-Munshi, can be ordered to be granted semi permanent status or permanent status on the post of Store-Munshi. It is no doubt true that if the fact had been admitted by the respondent that the petitioner has been functioning as a Store-Munshi then the only question would have been to consider whether permanent or semi permanent status could be granted to him considering his length of service on this post, but without any conclusive proof regarding his initial status as to whether he was at all appointed as a Store- Munshi or not, the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition that he should be granted permanent or semi-permanent status as a Store-Munshi, cannot be straight-away granted since this will require adequate evidence on fact in regard to the nature of duties discharged by him. It is obviously for this purpose that the then Acting Chief Justice itself Shri M. G. Mukherjee had left the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Conciliation Officer or get a reference initiated in this regard, but the petitioner instead of doing so, has filed this writ petition for such relief which cannot be entertained for the reasons assigned hereinbefore. However, in the interest of justice and equity, it is left open for the petitioner to approach for conciliation and in the event of its failure reference be initiated so that he can avail the opportunity to prove his status as a Store-Munshi and the relief in this regard cannot be straightaway granted by this Court, the same being a pure question of fact. The writ petition under the circumstances, stands dismissed. .;