VISHNU KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 26.10.1996, passed by the Labour Court Faizabad in Case No. 22 of 1994 under Section 33 -C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the prayer to compute his wages in terms of notification dated 31.1. 1991 whereby wage structures of the different kind of employees in the Vaccum Pan Sugar Factories have been revised. The petitioner claims his status as a Seasonal Guard in the factory of opposite party no. 2. It is stated that he worked during the crushing season 1982-83 to 1992-93, but he was not paid the wages as was admissible to the Seasonal Guards of the factory. He claimed difference of salary amounting to Rs.41723. 25. The claim was referred for its adjudication under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was registered as Case No. 22/1994.

(2.) THE respondents contested the matter and contended that the petitioner was purely a Daily Wages employee. He was never engaged as a Seasonal Guard in the mill, therefore, he was not entitled for the revised pay applicable to the seasonal guard. It was also stated that the recommendation of the Wage Board is not applicable to the daily wager employees. Their matter is covered under the payment of Minimum Wages Act. It is further stated that so far as payment of minimum wages is concerned, same has been paid to the petitioner. The respondent also raised objection against the maintainability of the case. After hearing both the parties the Labour Court framed preliminary question as follows;

(3.) THE Labour Court adjudicated upon the matter and on the basis of averments of the employer as well as employee it held that the petitioner was not a seasonal permanent employee. Therefore, he is not entitled for the payment under the pay structure fixed by the said notification on the recommendation of the wage board. That being so the petitioner has no right to claim the determination of wages under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before this Court also, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Radhey Shyam Mishra took the same stand as was taken earlier.In support of his submission he also cited following decisions;