FAIZABAD ELECTRIC LICENSE 1933, LICENSEES BRITISH INSULATED CALLENDERS CABLES, LIMITED Vs. ATA RASUL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a company supplying electricity, was a party to the reference No.17 of 1952 under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. In the award given as a result of the reference the scales of pay of employees of the company were fixed. Steno-typists were to get the scale of Rs. 1207 18012300. The scale of pay of clerks and typists was fixed at Rs. 85512510245. The scale of the cashier and accountant was fixed at Rupees 150-10200 15350 20450. The grade of steno-typists was higher than that of clerks and typists, but lower than that of the cashier and accountant, the highest grade fixed by the award dated 10th July, 1952. Evidently, arrears of pay could be demanded by employees of different grades at these rates.

(2.) The contesting opposite party No. 1, Ata Rasul, alleged that he was appointed in 1937 and was entitled to the scale of the steno-typists until he was appointed a cashier in 1940. The employer did not concede this claim. It appears that attempts were made by the employee to get the matter referred, in 1957 and again in 1960, as an industrial dispute, but he was unsuccessful. On 30th November, 1963, the contesting opposite party moved an application under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Lucknow, opposite party No. 2, in which he claimed that his case was governed by the terms of the award made on 10th -of July, 1952, and that he was entitled to the grade and salary of a steno-typist from the period 1937 to 1940 as he was appointed as steno-typist in 1937 before he was made a cashier. He prayed for the computation of the benefit of the award to him in terms of money and for suitable orders for recovering the same. The petitioner replied that at the time of the implementation of the award the contesting opposite party was a cashier and that he had not made any grievance at that time that his wages had been incorrectly fixed or that arrears of Rs. 564 claimed by him were liable to be paid to him.

(3.) The above mentioned dispute was decided by the Labour Court, opposite party No. 2, under Section 6-H (2) after making the following observation :