MANOHAR V BARAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns the order of the Labour Court passed under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that it suffers from inordinate delay and laches and because the petitioner has been unable to prove that he was entitled to a higher salary. As regards the maintainability of the application, the Labour Court has held that the application is maintainable.

(2.) THE dispute arises in the following manner : the petitioner was employed as Junior Clerk in S and M Railways on 23. 9. 1945. On 20. 7. 1954, he was appointed as Assistant Station Master and subsequently offered the post of Passenger Guide and thereafter, he worked as Ticket Collector. The post of Commercial clerk and Assistant Station master were entitled to certain grades. Writ Petitions were preferred by Asst. Station Master and Commercial Clerks in order to put at rest the anomaly which had crept into the two grades. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 3563/1974 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court for a direction to the Railways to fix the pay in a manner that it should not be less than the Junior Commercial Clerk, who was the petitioner's (Sept.-139)immediate junior. This petition was preferred by the petitioner after the Andhra Pradesh high Court had allowed Writ Petition No, 1153/1963 filed by some other employees similarly situated. The petitioners and others similarly situated filed several petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court claiming the same benefits as were paid to those who were covered by Writ Petition No. 1153/1963. The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed thus:

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the various writ Petitions, respondent No. 1 herein preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Apex court. These Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by the Apex Courat by the judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. E. S. Soundara Rajan etc. , AIH 1980 SC 959= 1980 SLJ 344 (SC ). The Apex Court while upholding the judgment in the casel which had been preferred against the Writ Petition No. 1153/1963, did not approve of the reasonings in the subsequent judgment which included the one in Writ Petition No, 356311 1974, preferred by the petitioner along with other workers. However, at the time of disposing of these appeals, the Apex Court in paras (10) and (11), observed as follows