BIHAR STATE TRANSPORT Vs. BHAWSAGAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions were heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. Petitioner in both the cases is the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. In C.W.J.C. No. 406 of 1975 respondent No. 1 is Bhawsagar Mishra, who is employed as a traffic inspector under the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in C.W.L.C. No. 1168 of 1976 is Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, who is also traffic inspector under the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 in both the cases is the presiding officer of the Labour Court at Bhagalpur. Respondent No. 2 by a common judgment (Annexure 3) in Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2 and 4 of 1974, under Section 33C(2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has rejected a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the applications filed by respondents Bhawsagar Mishra and Bhubneswar Prasad Singh. A prayer has been made in both the cases for insurance of a writ of certiorari quashing the said order contained in Annexure 3.

(2.) The common grievance of respondents Bhawsagar Mishra and Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh is that they have not been allowed to cross the efficiency bar in their pay scales at the appropriate time and were deprived of their increments in salary for three years. According to them, they were due to cross the efficiency bar on 15-6-1964 and 15-12-1964, respectively, but were not allowed to cross it until 1967, irrespectively of any order stopping it An objection to the maintainability of the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was taken on behalf of the Corporation-petitioner. According to the petitioner, the question whether the respondents, Bhawsagar Mishra and Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, were entitled to cross the efficiency bar involves determination of a right which may form the subject-matter of an industrial dispute and can be adjudicated upon a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, but not in an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

(3.) Shri K.D. Chattarji, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the beginning repeated the same arguments and submitted that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act which involves determination of a right. Later, Shri Chatterji conceded that an enquiry was permissible but it must be confined within the scope of the Bihar Service Code alone which was applicable to the case of the respondents. According to him, the instructions issued by the Government from time to time could not be brought in aid of the respondents for deciding the question.