H.P.STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. KAPIL DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, aggrieved by the Award passed by the respondent No. 2 i. e. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Annexure PC dated 25 -7 -1992 has preferred this writ petition whereby it has prayed for quashing the same being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void with a further prayer that the respondents may be restrained and prohibited from making or enforcing the said Award.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under section 619 of the Companies Act, 1956 and has got its registered office at Kishore Bhawan, Ground Floor, The Mall, Shimla and it sent a requisition for the post of Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 160 -400 plus usual allowances as per Corporations rules to District Employment Exchange, Solan. Amongst other things, it was mentioned in the requisition slip sent by the petitioner that the place of work would be Chambaghat and the nature of vacancy was temporary (one). Essential qualification was I. T. I. Diploma in Electronics with atleast two years experience in components store. It appears that in response to the requisition sent, the name of the respondent No. 1 was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Solan and pursuant to which the respondent No. 1 was called for interview to be held on 17 -7 -1980 as is evident from letter dated 12 -7 -1980 at page 26 of the file. Petitioner appeared in response to the said letter and was selected. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the interview letter, it was stated by the petitioner that the scale of pay for the post of Store Keeper is Rs. 160400 plus allowances However, while issuing the appointment letter dated 29 -7 -1980, which is at page 21 of the writ petition, the pay mentioned therein was Rs. 400 in the pay scale of Rs. 400 -20 -500 -EB -25 -650 plus dearness allowance plus compensatory allowance (D. A. Rs. 108 per month fixed and C. A. Rs. 20 per month and no other allowances). Pursuant to this appointment letter, respondent No 1 joined the services of the petitioner at Chambaghat (Solan) in one of its units known by the name of Himtron. It appears that the respondent No, 1 was not satisfied with the pay scale allowed to him vide appointment letter dated 29 -7 1980. As such, he started representing and according to him, at the time when he was called for interview, pay scale mentioned was Rs, 160 400 plus allowances, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 570 -1080 and at present this pay scale has been further revised from Rs 570 -1080 to Rs. 1800 3200 Petitioner made various representations from time to time claiming these revised pay scales.

(3.) In the meantime, as it is revealed during the course of hearing of this writ petition, respondent No. 1 was transferred from Himtron Factory, Chambaghat to Head Office at Shimla and he was re -designated as Clerk -cum -Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 400 650 which was revised to the employees of Himtron Factory to Rs 400 600. It may be clarified that according to respondent No 1, in the original pay scale of Rs 400 -650, wherein he was appointed in terms of appointment letter dated 29 -7 -1980, he was getting fixed dearness allowance and compensatory allowance amounting to Rs. 108 and Rs. 20 per month, respectively and no other allowance was admissible to him. Total emoluments in this pay scale at that time were Rs 528 per month, whereas in the new pay scale offered to him of Rs. 400 -600, his emoluments worked out to Rs, 1054 20. Thus, it is evident that in the revised pay scale, the emoluments of the respondent No. 1 had substantially increased. As is revealed from the record of the case, the representations as made by respondent No 1 for the grant of pay scale of Rs. 160 -400, revised to Rs. 570 -1080 and then again revised to Rs. 1800 -3200 did not meet any favourable response from the petitioner. As such, he raised an industrial dispute. The matter appears to have come up before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted failure report. Respondent No. 3 thereafter referred the matter under section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Annexure PE Reference made was to the following effect: -