STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SAURASHTRA MAZDOOR SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are directed against the award dated 28th April 1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. (ITR) 297 of 1990.

(2.) The dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which was the subject matter of the said reference, was in the following terms :

(3.) The Tribunal took note of the fact that the recruitment rules for the posts of Compositors and Assistant Composed Foremen were different. However, in paragraph 9 of its award, it observed that the Union had never demanded the pay-scale of Assistant Composed Foreman, but its demand was that the Compositors and Proof Readers had enjoyed similar pay-scales and therefore, the Compositors should be given the pay-scale of Rs.350 - 560, which was given to the Proof Readers, with effect from 1-1-1973. In paragraph 11 of the award, the Tribunal held that, through oral evidence, the Union had made out a case that the Compositors and the Proof Readers were getting similar pay-scales upto the period when the Sarela Commission Report was in vogue and for the first time, different pay-scales were prescribed by the Desai Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1973. The Desai Pay Commission had recommended that the Proof Readers should be given a pay-scale of Rs.350 - 560, while for the post of Compositors, it recommended the pay-scale of Rs.260 400, which was revised by the Expert Committee to Rs.290 - 480. Relying upon the statement produced at Annexure "B" by the Union, the Tribunal held that it showed the nature of work by the Compositors and the Proof Readers and held that the Union had also made out a case that the job evaluation for the post of Compositors was assessed at 325, while that of the Proof Readers at 310 by the Maharashtra Government. It was held that, Annexure "B" showed that the duties of the Compositors were greater than those of the Proof Readers. The Tribunal considered that as the pivotal reason for granting the pay-scale of Rs.350 - 560 to the Compositors working in the Government Press on parity with the post of Proof Readers. It was held that the Report of the Desai Pay Commission, in so far as it related to recommendation for the post of Proof Readers and Compositors was concerned (exh.30), showed that there was lack of representation on the part of the Compositors. It was held that the Compositors did not appear to have made any representation before the Pay Commission. After referring to certain excerpts from the report of the Desai Pay Commission, the Tribunal went on to observe that the Desai Pay Commission was not apprised of the fact that the Proof Readers and the Compositors were earlier getting similar pay-scales. It was also not brought to the notice of the Pay Commission that the duties of the Compositors were greater than those of the Proof Readers. It was held that, had this fact been placed before the Pay Commission, perhaps this dispute may not have arisen. The Tribunal undertook the task of examining the parity between the posts of Proof Readers and Compositors prior to 1969 and after 1969 and held that, injustice was done to the Compositors. It also examined the pay-scales of different universities, prepared tables and found that the Compositors had been put at par with the Proof Readers in the Universities in the matter of pay-scales by changing their designation as Assistant Composed Foreman. It was observed that, ".... This Tribunal feels that there should not be dissimilarity in the pay-scale scales of Proof Readers and the Compositors even in the Government Press and it should be equalized as done in the case of Universities' ....". The Tribunal accordingly directed that the pay-scale of Rs.350 - 560 be given to the compositors in the Government Press instead of Rs.290 480 from 1-1-1973 and 50% of the arrears be paid to them, together with admissible dearness allowance, from 1-1-1973.