ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29-3-93, contained in Annexure 8 to this petition, passed by the Labour Court under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I. D. Act").

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman claimed that he was appointed as a truck driver on 5.4.1961 with a particular pay scale and after induction of Pay Scale in 1967, he became entitled for revised pay scale. He filed an application claiming the benefit of a particular pay scale of Rs. 120300/ and claimed the arrears of salary. As it was not paid by the management-employer, the respondent-workman filed an application under Sec. 33C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court wherein petitioner-management contested the claim of the workman and urged that he has not entitled for the said pay scale. The Labour Court decided the said application by the impugned order dated 29.3.93 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 43,444/as arrears and Rs. 1000/ as costs to the workman. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) In the instant case, the respondent workman approached the Labour Court for refixation of a particular pay scale and entertaining such an application under the provisions of Sec. 33C (2) of the I.D. Act is not within the competence of the labour court. This Court has decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3345/1993, Superintending Engineer, Zhakam Project, Circle Udaipur Vs. Ramesh Chandra and another vide judgment and order dated 30.3.98 , wherein, after placing reliance on various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, particularly in Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P. S. Rajgopalan, AIR 1964 SC 743 ; Bombay Gas Company Ltd. Vs. Gopal Bhiva, AIR 1964 SC 752 ; Sri Ambica Mills Company Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt, AIR 1961 SC 970 ; Punjab National Bank Vs. K. L. Kharbanda, AIR 1963 SC 487 ; Kay's Construction Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1488 ; Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Baliram Ukandaji, AIR 1966 SC 616 ; U.P. Electricity Company Vs. R. K. Shukla, AIR 1970 SC 237 :(1970 Lab IC 276) ; R.B. Banshilal Abirchand Mills Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Labour Court, AIR 1972 SC 451: (1972 Lab IC 285) ; National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pritam Singh Gill, AIR 1972 SC 1579: (1972 Lab IC 857) ; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Workman, AIR 1974 SC 1604 : (1974 Lab IC 1018) ; M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1978 SC 996:(1978 Lab IC 693) ; P. K. Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, 1988 (3) SCC 457: (AIR 1988 SC 1618) ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Rajak, 1995 (1) SCC 235 : (1994 AIR SCW 5000) ; Management of Nilpur Tea Estate Vs. State of Assam, 1996 (1) SCC 60: (1996 Lab IC 755) ; Fabriel Gasusa Vs. Labour Commissioner, 1997 (3) SCC 150: (1997 Lab IC 912) ; Union of India Vs. Gurbachan Singh, 1997 (5) SCC 59 : (AIR 1997 SC 2641) and Chief Superintendent, Government Livestock Farm, Hissar Vs. Ramesh Kumar, 1997 (11) SCC 363 , came to the conclusion that such a claim cannot be entertained by the Labour Court in its jurisdiction under Sec. 33C (2) of the 1. D. Act for the reason that the issue had never been settled by adjudication nor it has been recognised by the employer and in absence of such a precondition, it could not have been entertained by the Labour Court. Proper course to get the revised a scale, the respondent-workman could have approached the appropriate forum and one of such forum may be Labour Court wherein a reference under Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act such an issue could be adjudicated.