"!-'r iUs- '>.-^HESI-iN-iioIlSiiE.a|L^^^ U . ' /•..'.-AT:,.JABjaLPUR. .;'/,".....';• ;,' ' / •. ^P.No. _^_|',,'c}6 ^he ^lanaging.Birec-bor,.';,..': ?S teel /Aut'horj.ty1 o£ Ihcita.Ltd. ;'Bh±la.l."5-t;e^:17Elan:t:,"""'''"'.,""''"' .B'H^I :t:IA I. -. : '• . •• ':1' ' 1: .- ^BRSUo. •PETITIONER,. /• :A. T,. 1 .• The S-fcate IndustrlaX' Court of ffi' Raipur'BeBch, ' A 1' ; '. ''; RMPUR..-':' / -. ; : • ' ' y2. ^ 4. 5 6.. 'Gurubax Sj;.Rgfa,. . r .^ • .' • .Ex.ChargemaK, • , ; . ,- Qr.No:., i/B,S'tree't; 23,, . . Sector-yiSIl,.BH3;LAINAGAR'.' Naujadifc Singh, • ! •• - - ;, .•Qiargemaa,^:'.;/. .:•• •'•.-;': \. QB . No:,. 8/B, Str eeit',3,.^r :'. -' SectCT-I, .BHl£Al}ifA6AR.' • : :'• /'-;'- ' •• ' .- ^* K.Baby,". •'' ' :\ , • Qr.Ncr. J, &,No. 285, '.,- ' • Smt'i-!;i..]fegar;' • • • ,''• • ' BHJLAINA&AR.' • :, E.S.Kalra,.:'.'^ . < . . . ". . Qr-»Np^',2/B^ S-bree'fc.,Mo;55.,. Sector-V,BHILA •3:WQ .:. ^ ' J.C^Sharma, '' ;; " ,'- Qr.No... 3./B,St;reet,:Nb..25, • Sec-bnr-IY BHZLAaiAGAR, Distt:;,Dur^'ia.P'.: . ^ ' ,. ^i^: i.'^s -^w- .V.-lfs^?a£SSSS!^'S^S'if- EE!E3:TH1 ;UNB5R.-.ARTICLE' 226/227:: k-. •• . :C?3]Erra:TOTIori! OF I NDIA • FOR-.:'aRAN'fc-'\-./ -: ^ ; -,. OF ^WI'I'.GF'MANBAMUS/CERTIORARY.''"-';:1 ', :•• iunder ; .'n»e^Pe'fcJ^.i.oiieK-'rtamea "&bQve;;Si.ibffli.'tl.:.as C6;K-t;<}.,«:.,»2i/-^;.; -HgSPONDBN'ES. l^) 123 HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURB OIHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Sin^e Beach: Hoa'bte Btei Satldi K. Aguihotrl, J. W. P. Vo.12 OF 1990 Petitioner The Mnnnging Director, Steel Authority oflndia Ltd., Bhflai Steel Flaat, Rhilai Versus Respondents : The State Industrial Court of MP Raipur Bench, RAIPUR. & 5 othMs. Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel for the petittoner. Shri P.S. Koahy, coiinsel for respoiidents No.2 aad 3. ORALORDrai (2and Febrnary, 2006) This petitton is fited by the Steet Authorify of India Umtted, Bhilai Steel Plant, praying that the orcter dated 24.7.1989, passed by the Industrial Court in Case ^to. 7/MPIR/88, be quashed and the order dated 4.12.87 passed by the Labour Court in case No. 116/MPIR/83 be restored. The admitted facts in nutshell are that the rwpondents No^ and 3, were appointed as Loco Chiver Trainee, vkte order datsd 26.8.59 ^nnexure A-1), along wHh one shri Gurudev Singh. The .orcter dated 26.8.59, provkted thal the respondents No.2 and 3, along wtth Gurudev Slngh and rthers who wer®appointed as Loco Chiver would be absorbed as Loco Operator on the operafion side, in the grade and scate <rf pay as sanctfoned for this category in the operation on passing the final test. t^-f 3. The respondents No.2 and 3 passed final test in I'tovember 58. However, Vhe petiUoner by order dated 20.8.1960, absorbed them w.e.f. 1.8.1960 and not w.e.f. htovember 1%9. 4. Being aggrieved, Shri Gurudev Smgh who was selected as Loco Driver Tralnee, vide order dated 26.8.59, dong wlth respondents No. 2 and 3, moved the Labour Court, in case N0.63/MPIRW, under sectfon 31(3) read with sech'on 61 <rf Uie M.P. Industrial Retations Act, 1960, seeking dedaraUon that they shouM be declared to have been absorbed on the post of Loco Driver w.e.f. 21.10.58. 5. Leamed Labour Court, by judgement and order dated 11.12.80 (Annexure A-IX), allowed the applfcation, partty and hald that Shri Guructev Singh was entitted to seniority as Loco Driver w.e.f. 1.12.59 and to the post of Loco Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.63. 6. The present peBtioner chaUenged oreterdated 11.12.1980 passed in ease of Guructev Singh by the Labour Court before the Industrtal Court. The case was ulUmately reached to die Hlgh Court. The High Court, by order datsd 12UI July, 1985 passed In M.P. No. 44/83 fited by Gurudev Singh, held as under: "For the reasons stated above, ttie petitfon is alkwed. The order dated 11.12.1980 (Annexure^) hi so faras it retused ttie daim of the petitfoner for difference of pay is quashed.So also, the order dated 18.8.1982 (Annexure-C) ofthe Indistrial Court dismissing the revlslon <rf the petWoner is quashed. U fe declared that in addUlon to ttie reltefe granted to him by the labour Court under its order dated 11.12.19M (Annexure-B) the petiBoner is also entKted to the reltef of dNferewe <rf pay on the basis Uiat he became entitled to hold the post ot Loco Driver with etfect from 1.12.19^, Loco Inspector wtth effect from 1.1.1963, Chargeman (F^ in the scato of fte. 325-475 !l;l!"11 1^< '?.'. (-, 't 8. with effect from 1.7.1864 and Chaigeman (P) in the scato of Rs. 650-1000 wtth effect from 31.12.1977. It fe directed that the management of BhilaiSteel Plant shall pay the difference or pay to the p^Uioner on the abovesaid basis wlthin three months from today. There shall, howwer, be no order as to costs of this petiUon. The outstanding securing amount shalt be refunded to the petittoner." The present respondente No. 2 and 3, being simiteuly sttuatad and havs been appointed as Loco Driver Trainee alwig with Gurudev Singh, on 28.8.59, fited an applteatton under sectton 31(3) read with section 61 of M.P. Industrial RelaUons Act, 1960, being Labwir case no. 116/MPIR/83, l«imedLabour Court vide order dated 4.12.87 (Annexure A-5), rejected ttie sakl applicafion filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, on the ground that the application was barred by time as well as on merit. Being aggrieved, respondente No.2 and 3, filed an appeal under sectton of M.P. Industrial Relattons Act, befwe Indu^rial Court Bench at Raipur, being ajveal no. 7/MPIR/1988. Leamed Industrial Court on the questlwi <rf IhnitaUw held that the applieatlon was filed In timeand on merit, teamed Court observsd that the management in ite communicalion dated 28.8.68, (Annexure A-VIII) Informed the responctente No. 2 and 3 (appellant therein) that the grievance committee of the petBioner had decxied to settte the cKspute of ttie respondents No. 2 and 3. on the same line aswould be dedded by the management as a matter of policy as such case of Shri Gurudev Singh Loco Driver. Accordingly the Industrial Cairt allowed the appeal on 24.7.89 (Annexure A-7) and directed the petiUoner herein management to grant the same relief whteh tias been granted to Gurudev Sir^h "!),i 1 n 7 ^ ('- --• w in the judgement and order dated 12 July, 1985, passed by the 1-ligh Court of Madhya Practesh, at Jabalpur, in M.P. hto. 441S3, within a period of slx mwrths. 10. The management/peUtioner herein, filed the present p^tton under Arttele 2261227 of the ConsUtuUwi of India, praying that the impugned order dated 24.7.89, passed by the Industrtal Court in appeal No. 7/MPIR/88,be quashed and the order dated 4.12^7, in case no. 116/MPIR/83, passed by Labour Court be maintained. 11. Shri N.K. Vyas, teamed counsel for the pettttoner, submHs that the respondents No.2 aral 3, caraiot be granted same relief as has been granted to Shri Gurudev Singh, as Shri Gurudev Singh came from other department and he was scrapper operator, respondent No. 2 was truck driver and responderrt No.3 was crane operator. 12. Shri P.S. Koshy leamed counset for the respondents No. 2 and 3, submits that (he present stand taken by the p^iUoner Is contraiy to the terms and condtttons of the ^(polnbnwit order datsd 2^1 August, 1959, whtoh does not disth^ifeh grant <rf absorf<ton on the basis of thelr designation and on the basis of previous seivice. 13. Leamed counsel further, submits that ttie case betore the tndustrial Court was that the same rellef wwild be granted to the respondents No. 2 and 3, as decided by the H^h Court ^ Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur, in case of Gumdev Sli^h hi M.P. No. 44/1983. Admittedly, the order d^ed 12th July, 1985 passed by High Court <rf Madhya Pradwh, at Jabalpur, in M.P.No. 44/1983, has attained flnarrty as tt has not been challenged in the /--• l^fliiiii^'fl— i-2^ IZ^ S'W Superior Court. The stand of the petitfoner is contrary to the facts and underslanding given to the respondents No.2 and 3, in communteation dated 28.8.1968 (Annexure A^). Even otherwise, this Court whlte exercising Bs power in exereise of Jurisdtetfon under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has very UmitBd scope. 14. In the present case, peUUoner has not pointsd out any p«versity or ittegality in the impugned order indkating ttiat the decisiwi was contrary to provisions of taw. 15. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and 1 have perused the documents appended to this petttion and retum including the order dated 26.8.59 and communteatfon dated 28.8.68 (Annexure P-8). There is no illegality or peiverstty in the order passed by Industrial Court, so as ID call for interference wUh the Impugned order. 16. In view of foregolng, the petBion ts dismissed. No onter as to costs. The petiUonar is directed to comply with ttie onter forthwith, prrferably within a period of 30 days frwn today. The respondents are further directed to make payments with interest <rf 6% per annum from the date the Impugned order was passed, fill the same is fald to the respondents. Sd/- Satish K. Aeaiht Judge tfi O.f