NARENDRA VRAJLAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AThe challenge in this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is oral order dated 8.6.2016 passed in Special Civil Application NO.5320 of 2016 by learned Single Judge whereby challenge to the award dated 6.11.2015 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.209 of 1999 came to be rejected.

(2.) Before the Industrial Tribunal, the dispute was raised upon a reference by Dy. Commissioner of Labour Court under the provisions of Section 10(1) of I.D.Act, 1947 about Mr.Narendra B.Rawal, Sub Inspector/Junior Clerk is to be given basic pay-scale of Rs. 1680 inspite of Rs. 1110 w.e.f. 1.1.1990 and to be given difference and arrears of salary as available to permanent employee with 18% of interest.

(3.) The Industrial Tribunal referring to a statement of claim Exh.4 noticed certain facts about initial appointment of the workmen on the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 10.1.1983 and at the time of raising the dispute was serving as an Inspector in the Tax Department of Rajkot Municipal Corporation. That, case of the workmen was based on the fact that juniors to the workmen who were admittedly appointed after him in the year 1991 though initially in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 on the post of Firemen. Subsequently, by order dated 25.3.1991 upon selection procedure undertaken by Staff Selection Committee appointed as Junior Clerks for a fixed period and even at that point of time getting basic salary of Rs. 950 but by virtue of so called approval granted by Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation received pay-scale of Rs. 1150-1500 and continued to draw such pay till their retirement. It is the case of the workmen that initially the Firemen who were appointed and getting basic pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 upon their fresh appointment to the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1991 and subsequent order passed on 29.9.1994 though voluntarily foregone certain benefits their pay-scale was protected namely, last pay of Rs. 1150-1500 drawn by such Firemen before their fresh selection as Junior Clerks. Therefore, according to workmen denial of higher pay-scale equivalent to those juniors who were initially appointed as Firemen and subsequently upon a fresh selection appointed as a Junior Clerks but due to protection of pay-scale continued to draw higher pay-scale till their retirement entitled petitioner to seek parity in pay-scale on par with such Firemen/Junior Clerks.