WASUDEO Vs. NAGPUR CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of Shri T. L. Junankar, District Industrial Court, Nagpur, dismissing the application of the appellant. It was alleged by the appellant that he was working as a filter khalasi at Gorewara, Nagpur, since 1946; that by an order, dated 2 February 1955, the non-applicant promoted him in a clear vacancy to be filter attendant, the services of the applicant being of a permanent character; that by an order, dated 18 August 1955, the non-applicant removed him from his job of filter attendant, without showing any reason or else otherwise giving any notice to the applicant and consequently effected a change in the conditions of service of the applicant not only affecting his wages but also his rightfully acquired status. He, therefore, alleged that the change was in regard to an industrial matter and was an illegal change and asked for a declaration and for certain consequential reliefs.

(2.) The non-applicant in his written statement has denied the various allegations. According to the non-applicant, the facts of the case were that the post of filter attendant at Gorewara Pumping Station was lying vacant due to transfer of Sri Bawangade from Gorewara to Kanhan Water Works, and hence arose the necessity of appointing a hand temporarily till the post was permanently filled up after advertisement. One Sri Laxman Bhagwan, a peon at Gorewara Pumping Station who was senior to the appellant in service, was temporarily appointed as a filter attendant under orders of the chief executive officer, dated 29 May 1954. Subsequently the appellant represented his claim for the post of filter attendant. Accordingly, the chief executive officer by his order, dated the 2 February 1955, appointed the appellant as filter attendant temporarily. The chemist under whom he was working, later reported that he was not discharging his duties properly and efficiently. The chief executive officer, therefore, directed that the post be advertised and applications called for. The post was, therefore, advertised and the selection committee selected one Sri Tambe who was appointed to the post and the appellant was reverted to his original post as a khalasi.

(3.) From his letter of appointment as well as the admission in the written statement, it is clear that there was a clear vacancy. At the same time, the memorandum appointing the appellant clearly states that he was appointed as a filter attendant temporarily in a clear vacancy. The limited question that therefore falls to be considered is whether a notice of change under S. 31 was necessary before a person would be reverted to his original post when a person is temporarily appointed in a clear vacancy. There is no doubt that his reversion would result in a reduction in wages from what he was drawing for the period he acted as a filter attendant. But, in my opinion, it is not in every case where a man's wages would be affected that a notice of change is necessary but only in cases where a man had acquired a right to certain wage, customary concession, privileges, etc., in respect of which a change was effected. Obviously, where a person was made to officiate in a higher post during the temporary absence of another, no such notice of change would be necessary if on the return of the substantive holder of the post the person officiating was reverted. To put it in other words, a notice of change would only be necessary when a substantive right is sought to be taken away. In the present instance, while appointing him to the clear vacancy, it has been abundantly made clear to the appellant that he is being appointed only temporarily. The expression is not very happy but it can either mean that he is only officiating in the post or appointed on probation. He does not acquire any substantive right to the post. In my opinion, therefore, no notice of change is necessary for reverting him to his original post from his temporary appointment and there has, therefore, been no illegal change.