THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.980 of 2000 Dated: 20.07.2010 Between: General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co., Limited., Srirampur (P) Area, Srirampur. .. Petitioner. and The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, M.J.Road, Chandravihar Complex, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against common award dated 27.11.1998 passed in I.D.No.54 of 1997 and Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. Petitioner herein is the management and respondent No.2 is the SC workers’ Union (AITUC) rep. by its Vice President. It appears, three workmen, namely, D.Mogili, B.Narsaiah and B.Komaraiah, who were working as Pump Operators Category III, were entrusted with the operation of two pumps of 75 H.P. each simultaneously in S.E.P. 3 Incline, which was the work of Pump Operators Category IV, and therefore, they were paid acting allowance of Pump Operators Category IV from the year 1993, but they were not promoted as Pump Operators Category IV. While so, from the year 1997 onwards, those three workers were entrusted with the operation of single pump of 190 H.P., installed in the month of December, 1997, and they were paid wages of Pump Operators Category III from the year 1997. Aggrieved thereby, the Union raised a dispute before the conciliation authorities, and on failure of conciliation, the Government referred the matter under Section 10 (1) (d) and Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, for adjudication of the following dispute: “Whether the demand of SC Workers Union (AITUC), CCC for promotion of S/Sh.D.Mogili, B.Narsaiah and V.Komaraiah, pump Operators Cat.III, Sreerampur-3 Incline of SCCL, as Pump Operators Cat.IV is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled and from which date?” Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was the case of the Union that the said three workmen, namely, D.Mogili, B.Narsaiah and B.Komaraiah, the Pump Operators of Category III, have been entrusted with the operation of two pumps of 75 H.P. each simultaneously in S.E.P.3 Incline, for the last five years continuously, and they were being paid acting allowance of Category IV wages from 1993, but they were not promoted to Category IV, to which they were entitled with effect from 01.03.1993. As per clause 37 of memo of settlement dated 29.01.1981, the pump operators operating more than one pump continuously, for a considerable period, are eligible for placement in higher category, and in view of this clause, several pump operators operating more than one pump, in different areas of Singareni Collieries, have been promoted to higher category after a period of six months of their operating more than one pump and, therefore, the case of the three workmen, for promotion to Category IV with effect from 02.03.1993 on the ground that they have put in acting muster for a period of three years and three months i.e., from 01.03.1993 till the end of June, 1996, shall be considered sympathetically as per clause 37 of the said memo of Settlement. It was the case of the management before the Industrial Tribunal that as per exigency, the three workmen named in the petition were entrusted with the operation of two pumps of 75 H.P. each simultaneously from June 1993 till December, 1996, for which they were paid acting allowance of Category IV, but that does not give them any right or eligibility to claim promotion of Category IV and, therefore, they are not entitled for promotion to Category IV. During pendency of the I.D., the Union also filed M.P.No.3 of 1998, seeking a direction to the management to pay Category V wages to the three workmen, on whose behalf the Union was representing, for operating powerful pump of 190 H.P., which was installed in the month of December, 1996, on the ground that the service conditions of the three workmen were changed in view of the operation of powerful pump of 190 H.P. The management filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the material averments made in the petition filed in support of the Miscellaneous petition. The Industrial Tribunal clubbed both the I.D. and the Miscellaneous Petition, and common evidence was lead in both the matters. On behalf of the workmen, WWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.W1 to W12 were marked, and on behalf of the management, M.Ws1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M1 to M12 were marked. After detailed consideration of both oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the Industrial Tribunal, by common award dated 27.11.1998, directed the management to consider the request of the workmen for promotion to Category-IV with effect from 01.01.1996, as recommended under Ex.W10, and the management was also directed to pay officiating pay of Category V to the workmen for operating motor of 190 H.P. from the date of its installation and as long as they operate the said motor. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned award and the other material made available on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Even the fact that the similarly situated workmen were promoted to Category IV and the memo of settlement and other Wage Board Agreement, relied upon by both parties, are not disputed. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-management, the management has complied with the award of the Tribunal, and as of now, the workmen might have already retired from service. This apart, this Court has not granted stay of the impugned award and more than ten years elapsed in passing the impugned award. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the impugned award and the writ petition is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.07.2010 v v