BIHAR WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Bihar Water Development Corporation, Patna through its Managing Director, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for quashing the decision dated 6-10-1982 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, (opposite party No. 1) in Misc. Case No. 22 of 1975 which had been filed before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by opposite party No. 2, Bachulal who is an employee of the Corporation,

(2.) Opposite party No. 2 had been appointed in 1953 in the department of Irrigation in the Government of Bihar as a tube-well operator (in short T. W. O.) in the scale of Rs. 28-40 in the category of a class-IV employee. The recommendation of the 2nd Pay Revision Committee (P. R. C. in short) came into force with effect from 1-4-1962 under which opposite party No. 2 was placed in the revised scale of Rs. 75-85 as recommended by the P. R. C. Me continued to be a class-IV employee. The recommendations of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee were given effect from 1-1-1971 and in consequence of the same O P. No. 2 was placed in the revised scale of Rs. 165-204 which corresponded to the earlier scale of Rs. 75-85. He, however, claimed that he comes in the category of Pump Chalak (Pump Driver) and as such he should be given the Pay scale of Rs. 220-315 which had been recommended by the 3rd P. R. C. in respect of the Pump Drivers.

(3.) By Government Order No. 844 dated 28-2-1974, the Bihar Water Development Corporation was created (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and the services of a large number of Staff of the Irrigation Department including Tube-well Operators were transferred to the Corporation, with the stipulation that their service conditions in all respects will continue to be the same as before untill new rules in this regards are framed. It is the admitted position that no rules have been framed so far, and as such it is accepted that recommendations of the Pay Revision Committees appointed by the Government are also applicable to O. P. No. 2 as well as other staff of the Corporation. Since the claim of O. P. No. 2 to be placed in the revised scale of Rs. 220-315, was not acceptable to the Government or the Corporation, he filed C. W. J. C. No. 1484 of 1975 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 16-7-19/5. Thereafter on 4-10-1975 he filed his application before the Labour Court, Patna under section 33-C (2) of the Act. The claim of O. P. No. 2 was contested by the State of Bihar (Irrigation Department) petitioner No. 2 here, and the Corporation and its officers (petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to 5), firstly on the ground that the application under Section 33-C (2) was not maintainable as the Labour Court could only compute the amount of money that may fall due to a workman on the basis of existing right but it has no jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the right and entitlement of the workman would fall within one category or the other listed in the Pay Revision Committee report, and they also seriously challenged the claim of O. P. No. 2 that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 220-315. The learned Labour Court held that the application of O. P. No. 2 was within the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act and hence maintainable and it also held that the O. P. No. 2 was entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 220-315 as mentioned in the report of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee for Pump Drivers. It is against this decision (Annexnre-1) that the present writ application has been filed.