(1.) This writ petition has been preferred to quash the order of the Labour Court, Faridabad, by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2.) Respondent No. 1 joined the services of the petitioner-Electricity Board as T/mate on February 18, 1972. He was promoted as Works Inspector on April 20, 1974, and worked as such till May, 1976. Thereafter he was reverted as T/Mate and he was paid the salary of T/Mate. According to respondent No. 1, his reversion was not given effect to and, therefore, he was entitled to the salary of Works Inspector from May 1976, onwards. He filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , which was allowed by the Labour Court in the impugned order dated September 1, 1982.
(3.) It is clear from the record that respondent No. 1 who joined the services as T/Mate on February 18, 1972, was promoted as Works Inspector on April 20, 1974, and worked as such till May 17, 1976. Thereafter he was paid the wages as T/Mate. The workman in his evidence as WW-1 admitted that he was served with a notice which is marked as Exhibit R-1 in May, 1976, reverting him as T/Mate with effect from May 17, 1976, but according to the workman, management had withdrawn the said notice and no action was taken on the same. But the workman also failed to produce any document to show that the order reverting him under Exhibit R-1 was withdrawn. The witness for the management who was examined as MW-1 has clearly stated that respondent No. 1 was promoted as Works Inspector for the work of staff rest house construction and after the construction was over, there was no work for him and, therefore, he was adjusted as T/Mate. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 never worked as Works Inspector after May, 1976. He worked only as T/Mate. The finding of the Labour Court that respondent No. 1 has not drawn my attention to any evidence to show that respondent No. 1 actually worked as Works Inspector after May 17, 1976. When the work of the Works Inspector was completed, respondent No. 1 has to be reverted to his substantial post i.e. T/Mate. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of the Labour Court dated September 1, 1982, is liable to be set aside.