CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJASTHAN STATE BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. Vs. THE JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner, namely, Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd. (now named as Rajasthan State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd.), challenging award dated 15.07.2010 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. ITR 94/95, whereby reference on industrial dispute on the question whether action of petitioner Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd. in not allowing Ram Gopal Sharma the pay scale 640 -1180 from his initial appointment, pay scale 1160 -2360 from 01.09.1986 and pay scale 1400 -2600 from 01.09.1988 and not promoting him on the post of Junior Engineer from 24.09.1993 and also not giving him pay scale of that post, is justified and legal? If not, then what relief and promotion the workman is entitled to get?

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that State Government made a reference to respondent No. 1 Industrial Tribunal and in pursuance to the same a claim petition was filed by respondent No. 2 Ram Gopal Sharma alleging that in 1984 he was appointed on the post of Surveyor and further it was submitted that his pay scale is less than that of the post of Operator and moreover in the Corporations the Surveyors are being given higher pay scale alleging the said submissions the respondent No. 2 sought the relief for grant of higher pay scale. Petitioner Corporation, in the written statement, stated that the claim filed by respondent No. 2 through Union being confined to relief only to respondent No. 2, the claim was not maintainable. Apart from this the services of the respondent No. 2 on the post of Surveyor has been given only in pursuance to advertisement published in the year 1984 and the dispute does not come into purview of provisions of Section 2(S)(iv) of the Act.

(3.) SHRI V.P. Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner Corporation, has argued that learned Industrial Tribunal has not fully and correctly appreciated the material on record and relevant law on the subject. It has erred in law in not ignoring provisions of Section 2(H), 2(K) and 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that Union cannot raise dispute in regard to individual, which was confined to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 could not be construed to work in view of provisions of Section 2(S)(iv) of the Act and therefore the Industrial Tribunal had no competence to pass the award.. The respondent No. 2 joined the services on the post of Surveyor on 31.07.1984 pursuant to advertisement in 1984. He did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Engineer. The Industrial Tribunal failed to take into consideration this aspect. Shri Sunny M.J., who was witness of the petitioner Corporation, clearly stated that respondent No. 2 was initially appointed on the post of Surveyor in pay scale of 490 -840, and he accepted the said appointment without any protest. He at that time had only possessed ITI diploma and has not submitted any proof of holding degree. Reference is made to appointment order of respondent No. 2. It was also submitted by this witness that petitioner Corporation and other Government Corporations had got different pay scales, that is the corresponding post with the Government. Such like in the Government service the post of Junior Engineer and Surveyor are not equivalent with the petitioner Corporation. The witness of the petitioner Corporation was not cross -examined on this point on behalf of the respondent No. 2 workman. The Industrial Tribunal ought not to have relied on pay scale of the post of Surveyor in another Corporation. Different Corporations have got different Rules and pay scales. It has been argued by the petitioner Corporation that different qualifications and pay scales are prescribed in different Corporation of the post of Operator and Surveyor.