VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) BOTH the learned counsel for the parties submit at bar that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is in relation to pay scale of the respondents/workmen, which is covered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Ors., (SBCWP No.7208/2010, decided on 15.01.2014).
(2.) THE only difference in the present case is that the petitioner (Nigam/Employer) has approached this Court by way of present writ petition assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 01.12.2010 (Annex.8) passed by learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has decided the dispute raised by the respondents/workmen, in favour of respondents/workmen in respect of 23 workmen, who are similarly situated as other petitioners who had approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petitions; and such writ petitions filed by them, came to be disposed of this by this Court in the following terms: - "Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the questions of facts, conferment of exact pay scale and fixation of pay deserves to be gone into by the respondent ­ employer and this Court under Article 226 cannot undertake this exercise. From the record, it appears that number of representations made by the petitioners to the respondents have remained unreplied and unresponded so far. Whether the petitioners were actually given the pay scale of Rs.1025 -1800/ - or not and whether the Project Allowance during their training period was also paid on the basis of this pay scale or not are the questions of facts which cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, pay scale No.3 of Rs.950 -1680 stood revised w.e.f. 1.9.1996 to 3050 -4590, whereas the pay scale No.5 of Rs.1025 - 1800/ - stood revised to Rs.3400 -5200/ -. Whether the petitioners who are undisputedly working as Technicians after completion of their training period of 3 years also deserve to be given the revised pay scale of Rs.3400 -5200 or not is a question yet to be determined by the respondents. It would be premature for this Court to do so at this stage. The petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case in view of fact that there has been some settlement between the parties vide Annex.4 dtd.27.3.1998 and also the Workmen who were ITI trained and who were appointed as Apprentice even prior to the petitioners and upon their regularisation, they got higher pay scale than the present petitioners. This situation has given rise to some anamoly in the pay scale to different sets of employees similarly situated in the present case. Therefore, without going into these details and questions of facts, the matter deserves to be relegated back to the respondent ­ Corporation for deciding the individual representations of the petitioners or common representation to be made by the petitioners, which is to be represented by their authorised representatives. At the suggestion of the learned counsel for the parties, the Committee comprising of following persons is constituted for deciding the said representations of the petitioners: i) The Chairman cum Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur. ii) The Director (Projects), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur. iii)The Director (Finance), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur iv)The Director (Technical), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur v) The Joint Director (Personnel), RRVUNL, Jaipur. vi)The Chief Accounts Officer, Suratgarh Thermal Power Station, Suratgarh ­ Secretary of the Committee. The aforesaid Committee will give an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioners or individual petitioners as the case may be and will decide the aforesaid controversy of grant of pay scale and pay fixation to them by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of six months from today. If the petitioners are found entitled to the higher pay scale as claimed by them, the consequential benefits including the arrears may be paid to them immediately. However, if the representations are to be rejected by the said Committee, after affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the Committee shall pass a detailed speaking order in accordance with law and the same will be communicated to the petitioners. It is needless to say that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the said order, they will be free to take appropriate legal remedy. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith." Though the learned counsel for the respondents/workmen have urged that since the learned Industrial Tribunal has decided against the petitioner - Nigam, therefore, the matter stand on different footing, but this Court is not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents in view of the fact that by the order dated 15.01.2014, quoted above, the entire matter relating to fixation, grant of pay scales to these workmen, similarly situated, has been referred to a committee of 6 high powered officials of the Nigam and the workmen/employees have been relegated to the said Committee, who is expected to decide their representation/s in accordance with law, including the issue relating to fixation and grant of pay scale to the workmen.
(3.) THEREFORE , the impugned judgment of the learned Industrial Tribunal cannot stand on the different footing. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner - Nigam (Employer) is also disposed of in the same terms. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2010 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Jodhpur is, accordingly set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.;