CHIEF ENGINEER RAJASTHAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Ground Water Board, Jodhpur and State of Rajasthan) have prayed that the award of the Industrial Tribunal, II, Rajasthan. Jaipur (for short' the Tribunal') dated June, 29, 1976 may be quashed and it may be declared that respondent No. 2 Budhasingh Choudhary is not entitled to get the difference between the pay of Blaster and Borer from April 30,1958 to April 20,1961.

(2.) THE material facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: The State Government vide its notification No. F. 1 (1)(342)L/72 dated March 6,1973 made reference to the Industrial Tribunal -I for adjudication of the dispute. The dispute referred was whether the action of the Chief Engineer' Rajasthan Ground Water Board, Jodhpur in not treating its workman Shri Budhasingh, who is being represented by the Rajasthan Ground Board Karamchari Union, Jodhpur, not to have been appointed on the post of Blaster from April 30,1958 and also not promoting him on this post in future, is proper and legal and to what relief the workman is entitled? The case was, however, transfererred to the Tribunal for dispasal. On behalf of respondent No. 2 statement of claim (Ex 3) dated February 26,1974 was filed on February 27,1974. One of the reliefs asked in the statement of claim is as under: That the concerned workman during the period of 30th April, 1958 to 21st April, 1961 in which the concerned workman had performed, discharged and shared the responsibility of the post of Blaster may be restored, rank, position, grade and be p'id emoluments of the post of Blaster. Reply (Ex Rule 1) to the statement of claim was filed on behalf of the Chief Engineer, Ground Water Board, Jodhpur. After enquiry, the Tribunal answered the reference in the affirmative but it held that respondent No. 2 is entitled to recover the difference of pay between Blaster and Borer for the period April 30,1958 to April 20 1961. The petitioner ha3 filed this writ petition questioning the legality of the award.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for orders on the stay application, learned Counsel for the parties stated that while disposing it argument may also be heard on the main writ petition Accordingly, I have heard Mr. Rajesh Balia, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. D. D. Parihar, learned Counsel for respondent No 2