R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner substantially is that he should have been reinstated on the post of "Encroachment Inspector" and not as an "Encroachment Guard," after the judgment of this Court, passed in CWJC No. 887 of 1987 (R) on 25th January, 1991 (Annexure -9). For determining this issue, it was necessary to look into the award under challenge in that writ petition. Accordingly a copy of the award dated 12th March, 1987, passed in Reference Case No. 11/1983 by the Presiding Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro was produced by the respondents and is kept on the record. When the petitioner was terminated, he raised an Industrial Dispute and accordingly the following reference was made for adjudication. "Whether the termination of services of Shri Sheo Narain Singh, Encroachment Inspector is legal and justified? if not, what relief he is entitled to -
(3.) THE Labour Court held that the termination was legal and Justified. The findings recorded in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the award are relevant. They are to the following effect. The petitioner applied on 21.9.1973, (Ext. M -1) for the post of Inspector, but by letter dated 26.9.1973 (Ext. M -2) he was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 190/ - without any designation as "Encroachment Guard or Encroachment Inspector." By a Resolution dated 6.11.1973 (Ext. M -3), the Chairman proposed for creation of a post of Guard on consolidated salary of Rs. 190/ - per month and the Chairman had already appointed the petitioner to that post. The said proposal was approved with certain change i.e., the petitioner was designated as an Inspector. However, the pay -scale of Rs. 190/ - consolidated was not altered. The petitioner made representation on 18.11.1973 (exhibit M -4) for giving him the grade of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and giving him designation of "Land Inspector" and for regularising his service and to make him permanent in his post. The petitioner was allowed by the Chairman to continue till further orders. He made a further request on 13.3.1974 (Ext. M -5) for giving him the pay -scale of LDC. But no order was passed by the Board on this application. Then by letter dated 29.12.1974 (Ext. M -6) the petitioner requested that he should be allowed to draw the pay -scale of LDC in anticipation of approval of the Board in the next meeting. The Chairman ordered to put the petitioner as LDC from 1.1.1975 temporarily. On 24.5.1975. the Board in its meeting disapproved the appointment of the petitioner as "Encroachment Inspector" in the pay -scale of LDC, he was, however, allowed to draw Rs. 5/ - in a month in addition to Rs. 190/ - and he was also re -designated as "Encroachment Guard" vide Ext. M -8. Subsequently, when the petitioner was asked to work according to the instructions of the State Supervisor, the petitioner did not obey the said order for which he was asked to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed temporarily without any designation. Then he was designated as Inspector but ultimately under the Boards Resolution dated 24.5. 1975, the order of the Chairman giving the petitioner temporarily the grade of LDC was disapproved and he was re -designated at "Encroachment Guard". But his pay -scale of Rs. 190/ - per month remained same, with Rs. 5/ - per month extra. After recording the said findings, the Labour Court proceeded to consider the dispute regarding the termination and found that the termination was legal and justified.;