TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Babban Lal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
(2.) THE concerned workman was dismissed from service with effect from 18.1.1980 for certain misconducts. While Reference Case No. 39/1973 was pending, the Management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval. That application was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1980. Thereafter, the Petitioner raised objection to the extent that the concerned workman was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The preliminary objection was rejected which was challenged before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1205 of 1983 (R) but that application was dismissed on 22.4.1987. Thereafter, an L.P.A. was filed which was disposed off on 16.5.1988 refusing to interfere with the order. However, the Labour Court did not accord the approval and accordingly rejected the application filed under Section 33(2)(b). The Management challenged the same before the High Court but that was also dismissed vide C.W.J.C. No. 1340 of 1988 (R). While the aforementioned Writ Application was pending, the concerned workman made a prayer that he should be allowed to resume duty and by order dated 5.10.1988, the High Court observed that there was no reason as to why the Respondent No. 2 should not be allowed to join his duty. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 resumed duty on and from 17.11.1988. According to the Petitioner, they paid the Respondent No. 2 his full wages from 12.2.1979 to 18.1.1980 after deducting subsistence allowance. It has further been stated in the Writ Application that his wages for the other periods were also paid but surprisingly the Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 33(2)(c) claiming monetary benefits on a higher scale which was registered M.J. Case No.5 of 1993. Since the order that has been challenged relates to computation of money in relation to the entitlement of an employee, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this Writ Application. However, Mr. Babban Lal, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute that the concerned workman was entitled to wages etc. but the computation should have been made on its own merit without making any comparisons in relation to other employees such as one S.P. Dubey.
(3.) MR . Babban Lal points out that the bone of contention in this case is that the Respondent No. 2;claims higher wages on comparing his case with S.P. Dubey. He draws attention of this Court to paragraphs5 and 6 of the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in M.J. Case No.5 of 1993. The said paragraphs are quoted below "5. A.W. 1 Shri Kesho Prasad is the applicant himself who has said that he was dismissed by O.P. -Management with effect from 18.9.80. Since Ref. Case No. 39/73 was pending in this Labour Court in which he was a concerned workman, the O.P. filed an application u/s. 33 (2)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for approval of its action, but the Labour Court did not approve the action of management and dismissed the application filed by it on 26.6.87 (Ext. W -12). The O.P. preferred a writ application against the said order of Labour Court in the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court which was registered and numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1340/88 (R). By order, dated 5.10.88 passed by the Hon'ble High Court (Ext. W -13), he was allowed to join his duty (Ext. W -1). Ultimately the writ application fited by the O.P. was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court by Order, dated 10.8.92 (Ext. W -14). Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court, the O.P. -Management took out an office order on 30.9.92 (Ext. W -2). Two more office orders were taken out by the O.P. on 2.12.92 and 2/ 3.12.92 (Exts. W -3 and W -4 respectively) wrongly calculating the benefits payable to him. His version is that at the time of dismissal he was Operator Grade -III (Exts. W -5 and W -6). The workman who joined alongwith him in the year 1974 in L -3 grade as Attendant Pump Operator in L -8 grade at the time of filing the present application. The O.P. has wrongly placed him in L -6 grade with effect from 31.12.90. Comparing his case with Sri S.P. Dubey he has said that he was entitled to be promoted to L -4 grade in 1980. L -5 grade in 1984. L -6 grade in 1988 and L -7 grade in 1992 and accordingly he is entitled to the difference of wages and other benefits like bonus. L.T.C./L.L.T.C.. Conveyance allowance etc. details whereof have been given in Annexure -I and II of the application. In his cross -examination at para 17 he has admitted that Sri S.P. Dubey was given L -4 grade in the year 1977 whereas his, promotion to that grade was due in 1980. He has also admitted that L.T.C. and L.L.T.C. are paid on the basis of journey undertaken. He has further admitted that the non -executive employees of Bokaro Steel Plant are reimbursed for the expenses incurred in preparing school dress for their children as well as medical expenses incurred in their treatment, but he has not prepared school dress for their children and he has not filed any voucher/receipt/cash memo in token of treatment of his children. As a matter of fact L.T.C., L.L.T.C. and conveyance allowance are paid to the workman who are in active service and who actually undertake journey. Medical reimbursement and reimbursement of expenses incurred in preparing school dress for 'the children are not payable on prorata basis.;