UNION OF INDIA Vs. KM CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents on account, of failure by the petitioners to grant them promotion had sought reference. An award came to be passed in favour of the respondents dated 20-1-1995. The award was in the following terms:

(2.) THE petitioners herein subsequent to the order passed in reference held examination. The results were declared and by memorandum dated 22-7-1998 the respondents were declared to have passed the examination and consequent thereafter office orders were issued to the petitioners in terms of the award. By the said office orders, the respondents were given back dated promotion and their pay was fixed based on that date. It is also given promotion and their pay also fixed. However, the arrears of pay was not paid. That was only paid from the date of actually passing of the order. The respondents being aggrieved by the office orders, preferred an applications under section 33 (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that considering the terms of the order of reference which are directed consequential benefits, the petitioners who were given promotion from the back date would be also to be entitled to the arrears of salary. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on an application by the respondents was pleased to allow the applications and directed payment of arrears and allowances arising out of promotion in view of the award dated 20-1-1995. On failure to pay within time as set out therein, the petitioners were directed to pay interest thereon. It is this order, which is subject-matter of the present reference.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, their learned Counsel contends that the order of learned Labour Court is without jurisdiction and or disclosing error of law apparent on the face of record in as much as the learned Labour Court did not consider para 228 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (I. R. E. M. ). It is pointed out that the office orders were passed on the said paragraph. I. R. E. M. are the rules in force. The respondents therefore, were not entitled to any amounts of arrears contrary to para 228. It is therefore, contended that the order of the learned Labour Court be set aside.