1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2764/2003. (SATYA NARAIN SHARMA VS. STATE & ANR.) DATE OF ORDER : 16.01.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. R.S. Saluja for the petitioner/s. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, AGA, for the respondent/s. The petitioner entered in the services of Public Works Department being appointed as Electrician w.e.f. 05.11.65 and a promotion was accorded to him as Electrical Supervisor w.e.f. 12.04.68. The petitioner remained as such till his reversion as Electrician under an order dated 17.07.90. An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs.180-425 w.e.f. 01.09.68 i.e. the pay scale granted to the Electricians promoted along with him as Electrical Supervisors, as a consequence to revision of the pay scales under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1969. The dispute so raised was referred to for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner by the appropriate government under a notification dated 31.07.95 in terms as to whether the non-grant of pay scale of Rs.180-425 w.e.f. 12.04.68 to the workman is proper and valid and if not then for what relief he is entitled. The Labour Court by its award dated 27.03.2002 answered the reference holding therein that the pay 2 scale of Rs.180-425 was rightly not given to the workman w.e.f.12.04.68. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. While giving challenge to the award impugned, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court as a matter of fact refused to adjudicate the dispute on the count that a fact with regard to the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Electrician w.e.f. 17.07.90 was not averred in the statement of claim but that fact was not relevant for determination of issue for the grant of pay scale of Rs.180-425 w.e.f. 12.04.68. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the promotion granted to the petitioner w.e.f.12.04.68 as Electrical Supervisor was subject mater of an industrial dispute raised by one Shri Mohan Lal and the Labour Court, Bikaner vide its award dated 22.06.89 declared promotion of the petitioner Satya Narayan illegal and ordered for promotion of Mohan Lal. A writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan giving challenge to the award dated 22.06.89 also came to be rejected by this Court vide judgment dated 27.10.93 and that was further affirmed by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.08.95. In view of it, the petitioner cannot be treated as Electrical Supervisor for the 3 period commencing from 12.04.68 to 17.07.90 and as such the Labour Court rightly denied the pay scale of Rs.180-425 to the petitioner. It is also stated in reply to the writ petition that the petitioner concealed a material fact with regard to his reversion to the post of Electrician w.e.f. 17.07.90 and, therefore, the Labour Court held that the workman is not entitled for getting the pay scale of Rs.180-425. Heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted as Electrical Supervisor w.e.f. 12.04.68 and the pay scale of Rs.180-425 was not given to him as it was allowed to the other similarly situated Electrical Supervisors w.e.f. 01.09.68. While according to the pay scale of Rs.180-425 to the other similarly situated Electrical Supervisors, the pay scale of Rs.130-300 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute for grant of the pay scale of Rs.180-425 as it was accorded to the other similarly situated persons. The appropriate government also referred the dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner in the term as to whether the petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Rs.180-425 w.e.f. 12.04.68. The petitioner came to be reverted as Electrician from the post of Electrical Supervisor as a 4 consequence to the directions given by the Labour Court in an industrial dispute raised by one Shri Mohan Lal and that award acquired finality but the acceptance of the claim of Shri Mohan Lal does not vanish the fact that the petitioner in fact held the post of Electrical Supervisor from 12.04.68 to 17.07.90 and the employer was require to fix him in the pay scale applicable to that post. The fact with regard to the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Electrical Supervisor to Electrician under the order dated 17.07.90 is having no relevance for adjudicating the issue with regard to fixation of pay of the petitioner while working as Electrical Supervisor. The Labour Court was to see as to whether during the period the workman held the post of Electrical Supervisor, the pay scale applicable to that post was given to him or not. The pay scale pertaining to the post of Electrical Supervisor was to be continud to the petitioner till holding of that post and the same had to be withdrawn at its own on reversion of the petitioner to the post of Electrician. The labour court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was holding the post of Electrical Supervisor in pursuant to an order that was valid till it was declared illegal by the Labour Court under its award dated 22.06.89 in the industrial dispute raised by Shri Mohan Lal and till then he was entitled to get the pay in accordance with law. 5 The labour court rejected the claim of the petitioner on a ground that was not relevant for determination of the issue relating to fixation of pay. In view of whatever discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court erred while refusing to adjudicate the industrial disputes on merits on the count that the petitioner concealed a fact with regard to his reversion from the post of Electrical Supervisor to Electrician. On basis of the finding above, this Court could have sent the matter back to the labour court for adjudicating the dispute afresh on merits but looking to the fact that the dispute pertains to quite remote years, the petitioner has already retired from service and the facts are not disputed, the appropriate course considered is to examine merits of the issue by this Court itself. It is not in dispute that along with petitioner two other persons viz. Gaurishankar and Krishnakumar were also promoted as Electrical Supervisor and the pay scale of Rs.180-425 was allowed to them. The above named two persons and the petitioner were possessing same educational qualification, as such there was no just and valid reason to give a lower pay scale to the petitioner. 6 Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed and the award impugned is quashed and the petitioner is declared entitled for getting his pay fixed in the pay scale of Rs.180-425 w.e.f. 01.09.68 and also further fixation of his pay in corresponding pay scale up to 17.07.90 the date on which he was reverted to the post on Electrician. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/