RAJAMMA JOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Steno typist on Sept. 1, 1967 in the Office of Kirkee Cantonment Board in the pay scale of Rs. 135-290. On April 13, 1978, The General Officer Commanding- in-Chief, Southern Command, Pune decided to abolish the post of Steno-typist in the pay-scale of Rs. 135-290.00 and instead created post of Stenographer in the pay-scale of Rs. 190-6-210-8-250-EB- 10-310- 15-340-EB-400 with effect from April 14, 1978. The petitioner was appointed to the newly created post. The post was created according to the requirements of the Kirkee Board and with the approval of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief, Southern Command, Pune, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 and Rules 45 to 47 of the Cantonment Account Code, 1924.

(2.) On Feb. 14, 1980, the petitioner made representation to the Board requesting that as the Stenographer of Pune Cantonment Board is drawing the pay-scale of Rs. 600-30-750-40- 950, her pay- scale should be brought on par with that of Stenographer of Pune Cantonment Board as she is performing the identical work as done by the Stenographer of Pune Cantonment Board. The representation made by the petitioner was considered by the Board and recommendation was made to submit the proposal to the higher authorities subject to the petitioner being qualified with regard to the higher pay-scale. Thereafter on Jan. 12, 1981, the Cantonment Board accepted the suggestion of the petitioner that she should be given revised pay-scale of Rs. 600-950.00 which is pay able to the Stenographer of the Pune Cantonment Board. The President of the Cantonment Board, accordingly, addressed letter Jan. 12, 1981 to the General Officer Commanding-in chief, Southern Command, Pune. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the General Officer Commanding-in-chief did not act upon the representation for quite long time. The petitioner claims that she made several representations to the General Officer Commanding in-chief but without any favourable response. Ultimately, the petitioner filed application under Sec. 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Central Government Labour Board, Bombay, claiming that she is entitled to the pay- scale of Rs. 600-950 on the strength of principle of equal work equal pay. The Labour Court dismissed the application holding that as the right to draw higher wages is in dispute, it is not possible to adjudicate the same in proceedings under Sec. 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition and the order of Labour Court was set aside and the proceedings were remitted back for fresh disposal. After remand, the Labour Court again dismissed the application by order dated Nov. 15, 1984 and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the legality of that order also ended in dismissal.

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India demanding raise in wage scale but that petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition and, accordingly, the present petition was instituted on March 29, 1985. The petition was admitted in Aug. 1985 and was thereafter transferred in Sept. 1987 to the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal returned back the proceedings holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner. The petition is now placed before us for final disposal.