IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:29.04.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition No.14443 of 1998 R.Rajendran ... Petitioner vs 1. The Management of Ilayur Variangaval Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Varinakaval through its Special Officer. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents. Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent passed in C.P.No.36 of 1996 dated 13.05.1998 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gangatharan For Respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran for R1 O R D E R The petitioner was working as a clerk in the 1st respondent Co- operative Society, which is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. The workmen and the Management of the Bank entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 16.03.1994 providing for revision of scales for various posts. The 1st respondent Bank comes under Class "B" . The scale of pay of the Clerk is coming under Sl.No.4, which is 805-30-985-40-1225-50-1375-60-1495-70-1705-80- 1865 and the post of Cashier, which is equated to the post of Senior Assistant, is fixed a scale of pay of 895-30-985-40-1225-50-1375-60- 1495-70-1705-80-2105-90-2195. It is the claim of the petitioner that by a Board's Resolution, he was asked to discharge the duties of a Cashier. Therefore, he should have been given a pay fixation to that of a Senior Assistant. However, after the settlement dated 16.03.1994, his scale of pay was fixed at Rs.805-30-985-40-1225-50-1375-60-1495-70-1705-80-1865 and considering the last drawn pay, he was given the basic pay of Rs.835/- The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent herein, under Section 33-C(2) claiming the difference in pay. It was his case that though he was discharging the work of a Cashier, he was paid the scale of pay of a Clerk. The 1st respondent- Bank filed a counter and stated that the petitioner's status was not altered by the Bank. He was only a Clerk and the post of Cashier is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ higher post and unless the petitioner was promoted to the higher post, he cannot claim the salary of the higher post. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed 8 documents and they were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8 and on the side of the 1st respondent-Bank, 33 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.R-1 to R-33. While the petitioner had examined himself as a witness, P.W.1, on the side of the 1st respondent- Bank, one Muthuramalingam was examined as R.W.1. The Labour Court, in the impugned order dated 13.05.1998, held that though the petitioner is discharging the functions of a Cashier, there is no obligation on the part of the Society to appoint a Cashier or promote the petitioner to the post of Cashier and unless there is a pre-existing right of promotion, the petitioner cannot claim the differential wages in a proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court also held that if the petitioner was not inclined to discharge the work of a Cashier, he has to raise an objection, on the contrary, when he was given the assignment of the duties of a Cashier, he was doing the same without any protest. It also held that the petition under Section 33-C (2) is not maintainable for changing the status of a workman especially when the employer has resisted such claim in change of status. 2. Mr.V.Gangatharan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the settlement provides the scale of pay and the fact that the petitioner was doing the duties of a Cashier he should be given the scale attached to the said post. 3. It is not the case of any occupational wage being paid in any industry. On the contrary, each post has been given a specific scale of pay and the Bye-laws of the Society provide an avenue of promotion. Unless the petitioner is promoted to the next higher post by a proper order of the Board, the question of claiming salary of the higher post, that too, in a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act does not arise. However, if the petitioner feels that he has been extracted work of an higher post and not paid salary for the said post, he can also make a representation to the Registrar and seek for appropriate relief. With reference to the order of the Labour Court, it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition stand dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner can approach the Registrar for a direction to the Society to pay wages for having discharged the duties in a higher post for which a new scale of pay has been prescribed in the settlement reached between the parties. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar bs/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Management of Ilayur Variangaval Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Varinakaval through its Special Officer. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. W.P.No.14443 of 1998 ASM(CO) rvr16 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/