RAJAN UPADHYAYA Vs. LABOUR COURT VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Rajan Upadhyay Is aggrieved by an order dated 29.9.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and seeks its quashing in so far as it relates to refusal to pay to him the salary as per the pay scale applicable to the regularly appointed class IV employees and directs for the adjustment of the payment already made to him. Mandamus is also sought against the respondents to pay salary/wages to him like similarly situated persons as regularly appointed class IV employees and not to terminate his services treating him as temporary employee.

(2.) A brief resume of the relevant facts may be set forth The petitioner was a daily wager as Class IV employee of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and worked as such from 10.10.1986 to 25.11.1989. He was a handicapped person and was demanding pay scale according to Government Orders as well as also payment for holidays and over time together with bonus. He was illegally terminated on 26.11.1989. The conciliation proceedings failed and the dispute was referred by the State Government under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court. There he [petitioner) also filed an application in the form of written statement on 2.3.1995. The respondents did not appear there despite notice and an ex parte award was made in his favour by the labour court on 1.5.1995. The employer/respondents made a belated restoration application before the labour court which was rejected on 5.11.1996. Thereafter the Deputy Labour Commissioner in order to implement the award passed an order on 10.12.1996. The petitioner was allowed to Join after much persuasion and under the order of the Chief Engineer payment was also made of some arrears regarding wages of the petitioner. However, further payment of Rs. 21,708 specially of bonus and the arrears of wages from 1.1.1996 along with other allowances was not made wherefor the petitioner filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court on 4.9.1996 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 73 of 1996. Thereon the labour court passed the impugned order which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition that he would be entitled to gel payment as daily wager according to the rates prescribed by the Government orders for the relevant period and that the over-payment made to him could be adjusted towards the actual payment due to him as daily wager. This, according to the labour court, was the real purport of the award earlier given in favour of the petitioner which had been wrongly interpreted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner while executing it. resulting in over payment to the petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the labour court has wrongly interpreted its earlier award by denying to him the salary and allowances of a regular Class IV employee to which he is entitled. It is also his case that similarly situated persons have been directed to be paid the same pay scale as is applicable to regular Class IV employees, by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1219 (SS) of 1997, Jai Narain v. State of U. P., by order dated 13.10.1997 and another order dated 6.11.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 6851 (SS) of 1996, Ramesh Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others, copies of which are Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition.