GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the award passed by the learned Tribunal on 21.9.1998, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Strictly speaking, it is not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mere labelling Article 226 would not confer the jurisdiction on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE submission of learned Counsel Shri Singhi that there can be two scales of pay in the same cadre for persons performing the same or similar work or duties, based on the Supreme Court judgment in case of State U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 19, will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Because the learned Judge has held that Guru Dayal Singh and respondent No. 2 Yashpal both were performing same type of duties as a Turner, therefore, the respondent No. 2 Principle of equal pay for equal work clearly applies in this case and in my opinion, the learned Judge has rightly passed the award in favour of the workman. At this stage, a submission was made by learned Counsel Shri Singhi that there was only one post of Turner, therefore, two persons cannot be given the same pay -scale. If there was one post of Turner with the petitioner then the petitioner could not have taken work of Turner from two persons. Either the petitioner should have created second post of Turner Gr. I or should not have taken work from respondent No. 2 on the said post. Having taken the work on the said post of Turner from the respondent workmen, the petitioner cannot deny the benefit to the workman.