- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.1.2012 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been dismissed. In the application the petitioner has claimed that he was entitled to get higher scale in the company as per the standing order, but the same was denied to him while the other four similarly situated persons were given the higher grade scale. Further grievance is that the annual increment was due on 1st April at the time of joining, but the same was erroneously shifted to 1st January and then to 1st July by the respondent unilaterally and the petitioner was placed as gradeless employee in the year 1988.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the said denial of increment on putting him to gradeless scale and also shifting of the date to his prejudice is wholly illegal and arbitrary and that the petitioner is entitled for getting his due payment after placing him at the appropriate scale after restoration of his initial date of increment.
(3.) The management denied the claim. It has been, inter alia, stated that the applicant was given promotion to the post of Senior Clerk in June, 1986. The incremental scale of pay is known as graded category and the supervisor and the managerial employees are in gradeless category. The scheme of payment of Dearness Allowance to the gradeless category was made applicable w.e.f. 1.7.1993, whereas the petitioner was in gradeless category since 1988 till his superannuation. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.7.1999 from his service and at that time he was holding the post of Marketing Officer. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the benefit as claimed for. The said controversy between the parties gives rise to a Industrial dispute and requires adjudication. The same cannot be decided on application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for computing the benefit on the basis of the accepted and pre-existing right. The petitioner's claim is not based on any accepted right. The application was, thus, not maintainable. Learned Labour Court has rightly held that in view of the controversy leading to serious dispute between the parties, proceeding under Section 33C(2) is not maintainable and has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application.;