UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHRI S. R. SETHI, SPECIAL TICKET EXAMINER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The very jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to entertain the claim of the respondents to have their pay scales stepped up in accordance with the decision of the Railway Board is the sole and the common question in this set of twenty-seven writ petitions, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment will govern all of them.

(2.) The facts are identical and not in dispute and it, therefore, suffices to make a brief references to those in C. W. P. No. 269 of 1978 (U.O.I. v. S.R. Sethi etc.)-. The respondent No. 1 therein along with others preferred an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act), before the Labour Court, Jullundur, complaining that some of the Ticket Collectors who had opted and joined as Special Ticket Examiners were drawing more pay than him though he undoubtedly was senior to them in the same grade. It was, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to draw the same pay which the latter were drawing in accordance with circular letter No. 831-E/123.III[ (E.iv) dated the 22nd April, 1966, conveying the decision of the Railway Board directing the stepping up of the salaries of the senior officials in order to remove the anomalies arising by an overly strict application of rule 2018-B(FR 22-C) R.II. The General Manager, Northern Railways, was impleaded as a party in the case before the Labour Court and he contested the claim of the applicants on the ground that there was no existing right to sustain such a claim. The Labour Court, however, in a considered order held that the applicants before it had a pre-existing right arising from the decision of the Railway Board itself and in accordance therewith allowed the applications and enhanced the salary of the applicants and computed the amounts due to them in consequence thereof.

(3.) The sole contention raised by Mr. Gujral in assailing the impugned order of the labour Court is that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and the claim of the respondents. It was argued that the proceedings under section 33-C(2) of the Act were generally in the nature of the execution proceedings and when the original claim of the workmen was disputed by the employer, the Labour Court at that time had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or to adjudicate thereupon, Reliance ' primarily was placed on the observations made in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen and another, AIR 1974, S.C. 1604-.