H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the RSRTC' hereinafter) has challenged the award Annexure -6 dated 15th May, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Bikaner (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter). The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute upon which the State Government of Rajasthan referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal by notification dated 14th October, 1997. The issue referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Tribunal was as to whether non -grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service to the respondent -Workman was valid or not? On receipt of the reference, the notices were served upon the parties and the respondent -Workman filed the statement of claim. A reply thereto was filed by the petitioner -RSRTC. The Tribunal adjudicated the dispute and answered that denial of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 years of service to the respondent -Workman from his initial date of appointment on the post of Conductor is illegal and therefore, directed the petitioner -RSRTC to grant the selection scale to the respondent -Workman on completion of 9 and 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Conductor i.e. from 1st March, 1975. The Tribunal also held that counting the satisfactory period of service for grant of selection grade scale 9, 18 and 27 is to be treated from the dated of initial appointment of the post of Conductor for which the respondent -Workman claimed the grant of selection scale and not from the date of appointment on the post of LDC. Hence, the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the controversy is no more res -integra in view of the Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur v. Bal Mukund Sharma and Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 55/2004 decided on 3rd April, 2008 it is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that even the respondent -Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh and Anr. 1998(3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 1 but that decision also in para 7 clearly mentions that grant of selection scale by circular dated 25th January, 1992 which applies for the employees of the State government and the circular dated 27th April, 1993 which is para -materia to the circular dated 25th January, 1992 makes it clear that service of 9,18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing service cadre in accordance with provisions contained in the recruitment Rules. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, even the Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Sharma and Ors. (supra) also taken a view that the period of 9, 18 and 27 years under the circular shall be counted from the date of their appointment in the existing cadre and not from the date of their initial appointment and therefore, according the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance on the decision referred therein.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent -Workman has supported the award impugned and contended that firstly, the respondent -Workman was appointed by the petitioner vide Annexure -1 oh the post of Conductor but he has been working and discharging the duties of the clerk and therefore, the respondent -Workman should be treated to be a clerk from the initial date of his appointment i.e. 1st March, 1975. It is further contended that similarly situated person, namely, Yusuf All Khan, who was initially engaged on the post of clerk has been granted selection scale from the date of his initial appointment and this fact has been considered by the respondent Tribunal and therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the respondent -Workman deserves the same treatment which has been given to Yusuf Ali Khan, who was initially appointed on the post of clerk. Learned Counsel for the respondent -Workman further submits that through the cadre of Conductor and the Lower Division Clerk are different as has been admitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having considered that there are two cadres but according to learned Counsel for the respondent, though the respondent -workman was appointed on the post of Conductor in different cadre then of the LDC but he is working as LDC and therefore, for the purpose of calculating satisfactory period of the service for grant of selection grade scale 9, 18 and 27 is to be treated from the date of his initial appointment on the post cf Conductor i.e. from 1st March, 1975. Learned Counsel claims the same treatment, which has been given to Yusuf Ali Khan on the strength of Article 14 and 16 to the constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the respondent -Workman has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Farooq Ahmed and Anr. : 2005 (1) RLW (Raj.) 565 and in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur and Anr. RLW 2008(3) 2299. Lastly, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that scope of the interference while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. : [1984]1SCR211 : AIR 1984 SC 38.;