IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 45 of 2003 Decided on: July 28, 2008. The Chamera Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh (Regd.) …Appellant Versus The Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-I and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : S/Sh. K.D. Sood and B.N. Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This letter patent appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby setting aside the award of the Labour Court, it has been held that Grade-II Draftsmen, working in Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-I, are not entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.420- 700, as claimed by them, on the basis of a reference, made at the instance of Chamera Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Twenty Draftsmen Grade-III were recruited by Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-I. Ten Draftsmen were recruited between April 18, 1984 and May 7, 1984, in the pay scale of Rs.260-430. Requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… recruitment of 10 more Draftsmen Grade-III, in the same pay scale. However, by the time, appointments were made between September, 1984 to September, 1985, pay scale of Rs.260-430 stood revised to Rs.330-560 and, therefore, selected candidates were offered appointments in the revised pay scale. Because of the revision of pay scale of Grade-III Draftsmen, pay scale of initially appointed 10 Draftsmen Grade-III was also revised to Rs.330-560. 3. Respondent Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage- I, in the year 1986, issued a letter dated July 8, 1986, whereby pay scales of Grade-I and Grade-II Draftsmen were slightly raised and by the same letter Draftsmen of three categories, i.e. Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III were re- designated as Sr. Draftsmen Grade-II, Draftsman Grade-I and Draftsman Grade-II, respectively. The result was that 20 Grade-III Draftsmen, referred to above, were re-designated as Draftsmen Grade-II. On account of their re-designation as Draftsmen Grade-II, the said 20 Draftsmen sought higher pay scale of Rs.425-800, claiming that in all other projects of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, Grade-II Draftsmen had been placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-800. On behalf of the said 20 Draftsmen, the appellant (Chamera Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh) approached the State Government, which made a reference to the Labour Court. Labour Court ordered that these Draftsmen having been re-designated as Draftsmen Grade-II, were entitled to pay scale of Rs.425-800, on par …3… with Draftsmen Grade-II of other ongoing projects of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation. 4. Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-I felt aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court and filed a writ petition in this Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Labour Court, as aforesaid, by the impugned judgment. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, now the Chamera Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh, at whose motion reference was made to the Labour Court, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the respondent. 7. It is not in dispute that the twenty Draftsmen, espousing whose cause the appellant approached the State Government for making reference to the Labour Court, were appointed as Grade-III Draftsmen in the un-revised pay scale of Rs.230-430 (revised pay scale Rs.330-560). 8. It is also not in dispute that pay-scales of Draftsmen of all the three grades i.e. Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III, working in the Central Public Department, were revised and Grade-III Draftsmen of the said department were given pay scale of Rs.330-560. According to the revision of pay-scales of CPWD Draftsmen, Draftsmen Grade-I were given pay scale of Rs.550-900 in place of Rs.425-700, Draftsmen Grade-II were given pay scale of Rs.425-800 in place of 330- …4… 560 and Draftsmen Grade-III were given the pay scale of Rs.330-560 in place of previous pay-scale of Rs.260-430. 9. On the basis of the revision of pay-scales of CPWD Draftsmen, pay-scales of Draftsmen working in various projects, undertaken by National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, were also revised, vide notification dated April 21, 1984 and they were also given the same pay scales. Later on, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation gave some extra benefits to its Draftsmen of Grade-I and Grade-II and re- designated the three categories of Draftsmen as Sr. Draftsmen Grade-II in place of Draftsmen Grade-I, Draftsmen Grade-I in place of Draftsmen Grade-II and Draftsmen Grade-II in place of Draftsmen Grade-III. It was in this background that the twenty Draftsmen, referred to above, who were recruited as Grade-III Draftsmen, came to be re-designated as Draftsmen Grade-II. However, on account of re-designation of grades of Draftsmen, no substantial increase was given in the pay-scales of three categories of Draftsmen, except slight raise in the maximum of pay scale in the case of Draftsmen Grade-I (re- designated as Sr. Draftsmen Grade-II) and Draftsmen Grade- II (re-designated as Draftsmen Grade-I). 10. On account of the aforesaid re-designation, now Sr. Draftsman Grade-II of respondent-project is equivalent to Draftsman Grade-I, Draftsman Grade-I of respondent-project is equivalent to Draftsman Grade-II and Draftsman Grade-II is equivalent to Draftsman Grade-III of the Central Public Works Department of the Central Government. It is because of this …5… reason that the learned Single Judge has held that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court gave the award without applying his mind to the factual position and consequently set aside the said award and allowed the writ petition. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge, because as demonstrated hereinabove, even after re-designation of grades of Draftsmen, there remain three grades and the Draftsmen, in question, are still at the lowest of the three grades. 11. As an upshot of the above discussion, appeal is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. July 28, 2008, (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.