IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 4826 OF 2001 U.P. State Electricity Board and another ……..Petitioners. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. at Bareilly and others ……..Respondents. Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed by the U.P. State Electricity Board against the Labour Court Award dated 26.10.1989 in Adjudication Case No. 117 of 1988. The brief facts of the case are that a labour dispute was raised vide a reference made by the Labour Commissioner and Adjudication Case No. 117 of 1988 was registered. The terms of the reference were as to whether the employer had rightly given higher pay-scale to the workman with effect from 21.8.1987 and if not then what is the relief the workman is entitled to. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The workman concerned, namely, R.D. Pathak was appointed as a clerk in Nagar Palika, Haldwani with effect from 25.11.1952. In the same Nagar Palika, one Sri Suresh Chandra Pant was also appointed as a clerk on 1.4.1953. Admittedly, Suresh Chandra Pant was junior to respondent no. 3 i.e. R.D. Pathak. All the same, Suresh Chandra Pant was promoted to the post of Accountant vide order dated 7.11.1974 with effect from 12.7.1972. Respondent no. 3 immediately challenged this order as he moved a representation before the concerned authorities on 18.11.1974. However, on 1.1.1976 the U.P. State Electricity Board had taken over the work 2 which were earlier been performed by the Nagar Palika and many of the employees of the Nagar Palika stood transferred and absorbed with U.P. State Electricity Board. In other words, the U.P. State Electricity Board stepped into the shoes of Nagar Palika with effect from 1.1.1976 as far as the present dispute is concerned. The workman i.e. respondent no. 3 consequently, raised a labour dispute, which has already been referred above, in which an Award was given in favour of the workman holding that the denial of the higher pay-scale to the workman was absolutely incorrect and, therefore, he was entitled to be given the same with effect from 10.12.1972 i.e. the date on which his junior was given such benefit. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Labour Court has travelled beyond its terms of reference is wholly misconceived inasmuch as terms of reference clearly state as to whether this higher pay-scale which has been given to the workman from 21.8.1987 is justified or not. In other words, the Labour Court had to examine as to whether the higher pay-scale ought to have been given from an earlier date, as claimed by the workman. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Labour Court has travelled beyond its terms of reference is wholly misconceived. This Court, therefore, finds no anomaly in the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bareilly dated 26.11.1989 as it has rightly held that the workman i.e. respondent no. 3 is entitled to the same benefits in service as were given to his junior Sri Suresh Chandra Pant. The present Writ Petition, therefore, is liable 3 to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.6.2010 Avneet