DIRECTOR TEXT BOOK PRODUCTION AND MARKETING Vs. THE WORKMEN OF THE TEXT BOOK PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar dated 26.10.2002, holding that the claim of the Workers Union, opposite party No. 1, for equal pay for the post of Junior Impositors, with that of the post of Layoutman -cum -Retoucher under the Petitioner -management is legal and justified and they are entitled to the same salary as that of the Layoutman -cum -Retoucher from the date of the reference.

(2.) The Workers Union raised industrial dispute claiming that the Jr. Impositors employed under the Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, are entitled to the pay at par with the pay of Layoutman -cum -Retouchers employed under the same directorate. The dispute was taken up for conciliation and the same having ended in failure, the State Government in the Labour & Employment Department referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication. The terms of the dispute were as follows:

(3.) The case of the Workers Union, opposite party No. 1, before the Industrial Tribunal was that in the Directorate of Text Book Production and Marketing there are four posts of Jr. Impositors out of which, two persons namely, Shri Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan were direct recruits and the other two namely, Nrusingh Ch. Naik and Raghabananda Ranjit were holding the post by promotion. The requisite qualification for the post of Jr. Impositor is Matriculation with technical training in Printing Technology and the two incumbents namely, Shri Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan having the requisite qualification were continuing in the organization of the management since 1979. It was pleaded that the prescribed qualification for the post of Layoutman -cum -Retoucher is Diploma in off set Lithography with specialization in Retouching. The incumbents, Shri N. Naik and Shri R. Ranjit were not qualified to hold such posts, as they were non -matriculates and were given promotion from the post of Plate Makers. It was further pleaded by the Workers Union that the nature of duty of both the posts, i.e., Jr. Impositor and Layout man -cum Retoucher is same and similar and despite the equality in their qualification and nature of duty, the Jr. Impositors are getting lower pay scale than the Layoutman -cum -Retoucher, inasmuch as, the post of Jr. Impositor carries the pay scale of Rs. 800 -1l50, whereas the post of Layoutman -cum -Retoucher carries the pay scale of Rs. 1400 -2300. Accordingly the Workers Union demanded equal pay for the post of Jr. Impositor with that of the Layoutman -cum -Retoucher. The management sought clarification from the Director of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Cuttack, who vide his letter dated 18.08.1984 clarified the issue and recommended to consider the case of Jr. Impositors but the management denied the benefits of equal pay claimed by the Union, which according to the Union was arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly it was pleaded that there being no difference in the nature of duties of Jr. Impositors and Layout man -cum Retoucher, the claim of the Workers Union for equal pay scale of Jr. Impositors with that of the Layoutman -cum -Retoucher is legal and justified.