CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of writ of certiorari a challenge is made to the award dated 20.5.1993 published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette Extra, July, 1993, whereby the Field Workers working in the Engineering Department within the control of the Chief Engineer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, were held entitled to receive their revised pay scales with effect from 1st February, 1968.

(2.) It was averred in the petition that respondent No. 1 i.e. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who entered into the reference and passed the award has usurped the powers without going into scope of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had erred in deciding the dispute which fell outside its jurisdiction.

(3.) The main controversy with regard to which adjudication is sought by the petitioner is whether the Labour Court is competent to adjudicate a dispute falling under Schedule III of the Act; whether the petitioner department is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act ? At very outset it may be stated that the learned Labour Court has passed the award after the issues were framed and the parties had led evidence in the matter and they were heard. On every count finding has been given by the Labour Court and it has found that all the people holding the posts of Chargemen (Civil) were equivalent to Chargemen (AC) Mechanical and the petitioner was bound to pay revised pay to such workmen-respondents, who were entitled to it, for the fact that the work-charge Works Inspectors/Chargemen who held inferior status and were much junior to the Works Inspectors/Chargemen have been extended this benefit from 1st February, 1968. Once the juniors to the respondents were getting more pay as compared to their seniors, who had become regular under law, they were entitled to the higher pay and, therefore, within the terminology of the revised pay scheme they were entitled to receive revised pay from 1st February, 1968 instead of 15th August, 1972. The petitioner could not controvert this merit of the case before the Labour Court, which on facts and legalities of the case found that the respondents were entitled to the higher grade from 1st February, 1968 and not from 15th August, 1972.