IHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BALO RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 15.2.1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 7180 of 1992 (M/s Balo Rai and 121 others vs. the Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 8839 of 1992 (Ram Pravesh Mahto and 123 others vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others) [reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 139] and as identical question has been raised in both the appeals and have been heard together with the consent of the parties, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) 122 coal unloading workers of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter to been accepted by the Board and as such, the same was required to be granted. In view of aforesaid facts and in view of decisions as discussed above and also that non -granting of equal pay scale being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the court held that the regular pay scale in the semi -skilled 'B' workmen was required to be granted to the writ petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment of the writ Court. The date of payment of said salary was decided from the date of filing of the writ petition before this Court.

(3.) CONTENTION on behalf of writ petitioners - respondents in both the writ petitions was to the effect that as their services have already been regularised, they in view of several judgments of the Supreme Court and in view of recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee, were at least entitled for payment of lowest pay scale being paid to the workmen discharging similar works in the category of semiskilled 'B' workmen. Learned writ Court taking into consideration the submissions of the writ petitioners and also after taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Krishna Kant and others: 1995(5) SCC 75 whereby the Supreme Court had decided and laid down certain principles where the Court should interfere in the matter relating to industrial dispute, came to the conclusion that in view of recommendation of the pay revision committee by its letter dated 5th June, 1981 which has recommended granting of scale of the unskilled Khalasi to the coal unloading mazdoor and as the order of the Board dated 26th October, 1991 also accepts in principles that a regular pay scale should be granted to the petitioners, as such, the entitlement of the writ petitioners for grant of regular pay scale has left it entirely upto the Board to decide where such persons as that of coal unloaders were to be fitted in the category of workman'. In view of aforesaid recommendation and in view of clear finding that petitioners and the persons in their category were not semi -skilled 'B' category workmen, it has been argued that the learned single Judge erred in allowing them the aforesaid pay scale.