S SRINIVAS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Telephone Attender in the office of the third respondent filed an application before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter called 'the Act') claiming difference in salary from 1-5-1983 to 30-6-1987 stating that though he was appointed as Telephone Attender, the third respondent was utilising his services as Filter Operator without paying the salary attached to the said post. The Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that at no point of time the petitioner made any representation seeking enhanced salary. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) The Counsel for the respondents tried to justify the order passed by the Labour Court, which according to me, has no legs to stand.

(3.) The first ground of rejection taken by the Labour Court is that the application was filed in the year 1993 though the petitioner ceased to be Filter Operator six years back. The Labour Court gravely erred in coming to the said conclusion by taking the number of the case after it was transferred to its file. Initially, the case was taken up by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court in the year 1987 as M.P.No. 337 of 1987 and the Tribunal recorded the evidence on both sides way back in 1988 and it is not known why this application was kept pending thereafter. But the case seemed to have been transferred to the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in 1993 and it was renumbered as M.P.No. 56 of 1993. But, unfortunately, without looking into the record, the Labour Court jumped at the conclusion that the case was filed in the year 1993, which is incorrect as per the record. In fact, the moment the petitioner was reverted as Telephone Attender, he filed the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Hence, the first ground for rejection of the claim falls to ground. The second ground of rejection is that the petitioner did not file any application before the respondents claiming higher salary till 1993 from 1-5-1983 to 30-6-1987. Because of the erroneous conclusion the Labour Court arrived at with regard to the filing of the claim petition, to my mind, the learned Judge recorded the finding on the second issue. From the facts of the case, it is seen that though the petitioner was appointed as Telephone Attender on 1-5-1983, as per the certificates issued by the third respondent, which were marked as Exs. W.W. 1 and W.W. 2, the petitioner was working as Filter Operator. The petitioner might have come to know that the respondents are indulging in unfair labour practice in not paying the salary attached to the post in which he is working and might have made an oral request to the authorities concerned and immediately he was reverted back to the post of Telephone Attender on 30-6-1987. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court.