LAWS(BOM)-1996-11-49

RAMESH GANPATRAO WANKHEDE Vs. WORKS MANAGER CENTRAL WORKSHOP MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Decided On November 09, 1996
RAMESH GANPATRAO WANKHEDE Appellant
V/S
WORKS MANAGER,CENTRAL WORKSHOP,MAHARASHTRA STATE,ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a Fire Warden working in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called "the Corporation" for the sake of brevity) is challenging the judgment by Industrial Court dismissing his complaint. By the said complaint, the petitioner had objected to the withdrawal of 20% of extra pay which was being given to him. The said pay was withdrawn by a communication dated 4-2-1988 and with effect from 1-2-1988. It was the case of the petitioner before the Industrial Court that the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Fire Warden. His appointment order is annexed herein and his appointing authority mentioned there is the Chief Personnel Officer.

(2.) THE petitioner contended in his complaint that, to begin with he was posted in the Central Workshop, Dapoli at Pune where he continued upto 14-6-1986 when he was transferred to the Central Workshop, Nagpur. The main reliance of the petitioner in the complaint was on the order dated 7-6-1982 passed by the Assistant Workshop Superintendent who was probably acting for Works Manager then. In this order in paragraph 2 it is mentioned as below :-

(3.) THE application came to be opposed. The case of the Corporation in defence was that the petitioner right from the beginning was not entitled to any such special pay. The Corporation pointed out that under the circular the duty hours of the Fire Warden were 8 hours a day and therefore, the complainant was not doing anything extra and, therefore, he was not entitled to the special pay of 20%. They claimed that the petitioner was not entitled to any special pay which was hitherto being paid to him. They claimed that an audit objection in that behalf was raised and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was verified and it was found that the petitioner was wrongly granted the special pay. They further claimed that the Personnel Department Circular No. 26/83 and more particularly category No. 53 there in does not entitle Fire Warden to a special pay while it spells out a duty of eight hours to a Fire Warden.