ASHOK KUMAR Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition tinder Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari, against the respondent no. 2, which is a Corporate Body and is an authority under Article 12 of the constitution of India, for a direction to fix and to pay to the petitioner the pay scale of rs. 650-1200 from 20-9-1978 to 23-6-1981 for the post of the Labour Officer, and from 24-6-1981, and thereafter in the grade of Rs. 700-1300 and for payment of officiating allowance of the post of the Chief Welfare Officer-cum-Labour Officer, in the alternative to quash the order of the Industrial Court (Annexure-P) dated 19th november, 1984 and to remit the case to the Labour Court for deciding the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.

(2.) THE short facts material to this petition, which are not in much of dispute, may be stated, thus : The petitioner after due advertisement, was appointed vide order (Annexure-A) dated 28th September, 1978 on the post of the Labour Officer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month. Thereafter, he was confirmed on the said post vide order (Annexure-A1) dated 14th April, 1979. The respondent No. 2, revised the pay scale of the petitioner and he was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-10-380 EB 12-500 EB 15-560 with a basic pay of Rs, 452 plus house rent allowance and other usual allowances applicable to the Corporation employees, vide Annexure-B dated 15-11-1979. In this order the petitioner was styled as Labour Assistant. The petitioner objected to it vide Annexure-C and accepted the same under protest with a condition that his designation should be maintained as Labour Officer and he be placed in the grade of Labour Officer. He filed in Annexure-R-1 on 26-11-1979 with a letter of protest (Annexure-R-2), annexed by the respondents with their return. Respondent no. 2 issued another order Annexure-D dated 23-4-1980, whereby the petitioner instead of Labour Officer was shown in the list of Junior Labour Welfare officers/labour Assistants and was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 425-15-500 EB 15-560-20-700 plus usual allowances admissible to the Corporation employees whereas from 1-5-1980. The petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 455/- per month. By this order, the petitioner and others were designated as Assistant Labour Welfare Officers. Vide order Annexure-E dated 27-8-1980, the petitioner was ordered to act as an officiating labour Officer in Hira Mills and was ordered to be paid officiating allowance as per rules. The petitioner to these Unilateral orders Annexure-B, D and E continuously objected and represented about his designation and to fix him in the pay and the grade of the Labour Officers. On this the General Manager of the respondent No. 2 vide annexure-F dated 20-12-1980, recommended the case of the petitioner and wrote to the Production Manager about the appointment and confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Labour Officer, and the protest of the petitioner in respect of designating him as Labour Assistant. The General Manager in his letter stated that the petitioner is working as a full fledged Labour Officer whereas from 4th September, 1980 and during this period his services were found satisfactory, the petitioner was able to handle the charge of the Labour Officer independently. The General Manager strongly recommended that in view of the earlier assurance to the petitioner, the petitioner should be placed in the grade of Labour Officer as stipulated in his appointment letter annexure-A and A-1.

(3.) BUT, the petitioner was neither designated as Labour Officer nor was paid the grade of the Labour Officer though he was performing and discharging the duties and functions of the Labour Officer since the inception of his employment, the petitioner made representations Annexure-F-1 dated 19-5-1981 and Annexure-F-2 dated 29-12-1981. Upon this again the General Manager of the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure F-3 dated 23-5-1981, recommended the name of the petitioner for Labour Officer and also stated therein that the performance of the petitioner as Officiating Labour Officer is quite satisfactory, he has acquired thorough knowledge of the Mills labour affairs, his representation be considered favourably arid the orders in this respect be issued at the earliest. General Manager again vide Annexure-F-4 dated 24-7-1981 strongly recommended the case of the petitioner on the ground that in response to an open advertisement the petitioner was interviewed for the post of the Labour Officer at the head Office, the result is awaited. The post of the Chief Welfare Officer is vacant in the Mills. Petitioner has been posted as a Labour Officer from 5th Sept. , 1980, his work on the post has been quite satisfactory. Both the Ex General Managers have recommended the case of the petitioner for confirmation as Labour Officer and now as a Chief Labour Welfare Officer, as the petitioner is carrying on the responsibility of the post of the Labour Officer/chief Welfare Officer for about one year satisfactorily. But even after these three recommendations, the petitioner was neither appointed nor was paid the grade of Labour Officer. Besides, recommendations, the petitioner in response to open advertisement, was interviewed on 17-3-1981, by the Selection committee, the petitioner was selected vide Annexure-G as a departmental candidate, on the basis of qualifications, experience, and knowledge of the subject. But the petitioner was not appointed nor was paid the pay scale of Labour Officer. The manager Personnel of respondent No. 2, for the first time, vide letter dated June 5, 1982 (Annexure-L) wrote contrary to Annexure-G and informed that Selection committee is of the view that the petitioner has to prove his ability and working knowledge of functions and duties including labour laws study. As number of persons were working in the Labour Office, hence vide order dated 13-4-1982, Annexure-J), annexure-J-1, dated 7-6-1983 and Annexure-J-2 dated 21-6-1984, the Factory Manager, looking to the exigencies and requirement of work, distributed the duties of the petitioner and others working in Labour Office, petitioner continued to perform the duties efficiently, as assigned to him from time to time.