THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.632 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 18.12.2000 passed in I.D.No.139 of 1997 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur. Petitioner is the management and respondent is the workman. It appears, the workman was appointed as driver on temporary basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in the year 1971 and subsequently his services were regularized as Driver of Grade-II. While so, the Corporation revised the pay scales of its employees with effect from 01.04.1989 and fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs.1810/-. Thereupon, questioning the action of the respondent Corporation in fixing his pay at Rs.1810/-, which is less than the pay fixed in the case of his junior, the petitioner raised a dispute and, ultimately, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’), in I.D.No.139 of 1997, for adjudication of the following issue: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram, in fixing the pay of Sri M.N.Raju, Driver, E.37988 at Rs.1810/- overlooking his seniority over his junior Sri P.B.Raju, E-48790 whose pay is fixed at Rs.1945/-is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled? It was the claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court that he joined in the respondent Corporation on 08.07.1971 and his services were regularized in the year 1973. While so, at the time of fixing the basic pay as per revised pay scales of 1989, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.1810/-, which was less than that of the basic pay of his junior, therefore, he is entitled for fixation of his basic pay on par with his junior with effect from 01.04.1989. The management filed their counter before the Labour Court stating that the workman never submitted application at any time regarding the pay anomaly either to the Depot Manager of the Corporation or to the competent authority. It was also stated that even assuming that the workman has submitted his representation to the concerned authorities, he was not entitled for the pay on par with his juniors, since he was imposed with the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and also that his increments were postponed for two months due to his leave without pay for 44 days. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, the workman himself was examined as WW.1 and marked the document Ex.W1. On behalf of the management, MW.1 was examined and Exs.M1 to M4 were marked. After detailed consideration of the matter, the Labour Court recorded its findings as under: “..from the evidence of MW.1 and WW.1, it is evident that the applicant was appointed on 07.01.1973 whereas P.Bangaraju was appointed on 17.03.1973 in the same time-scale of pay. But while fixing the pay in the revised pay scales of 1989, the pay of the petitioner was fixed less than that of P.Bangararaju. As per the comparative statement prepared by the MW.1, which is marked as Ex.M.3, the pay of the petitioner as on 1.4.89 is Rs.1665 plus 10 and whereas the pay of P.Bangaraju is Rs.1660/- . But on 1.2.90 the pay of the petitioner was Rs.1710 plus 10 PP, whereas the pay of P.Bangaraju as on 1.5.1990 is Rs.1785/-. No reason was shown why the variation came in the pay of the petitioner than that of P.Bangararaju. As admitted by MW.1, even if the promotion was given to Bangaraju, subsequent to revised pay scales there need not be any effect in the basic pay as the petitioner was also promoted prior to the revision of the pay scale. Therefore, there is disparities in fixing the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scales of 1989 and the same was also admitted by MW1 and according to him, as the applicant has not submitted his representation within time, he was not given the said benefit. Simply because he has not submitted representation within time prescribed by the respondent, he cannot be denied to rectify the defects pointed out by him in fixing the pay scales of 1989 by the respondent. Admittedly, the fixation of the pay scale will be done by the respondent and it is a mistake committed by the respondent in fixing the pay scale of the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for his pay on par with his junior while fixing the pay scale in the revised pay scale of 1989. Hence, the action of the Depot Manager in fixing the pay of the petition at Rs.1810/- overlooking his seniority over his junior is not justified. Accordingly, the point is held.” From the above, it is clear that the workman was senior to the said P.Bangaraju. Merely because the workman has not submitted his representation in time, the management could not have denied the claim of the workman for fixing his pay in the revised pay scales of 1989 on par with the said Bangaraju at Rs.1945/-. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.02.2011 v v