IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS NO. 1646 OF 2001 Secretary, U.P. State Electricity Board & another. …………….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others. ………..Respondents. Mr. N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 27.5.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani in Adjudication Case No. 48 of 1994. 2. A dispute was referred, vide Govt. Order No. 5642- 48(Shra.Aa.)/36-Shram(1) C.B. 52/92 Kumayun dated 29.6.1993 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 48 /94. The reference was made in the following terms: “Whether the determination of salary of the Workman Sri Rakesh Kumar Rastogi, S/o Sri Bhukan Sharan Rastogi, Meter Reader by not including the work charge service with annual increment is unjustified and / or illegal, if yes, to what benefit/relief the concerned employee is entitled to and to what extent?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Work In charge S.S.A in the petitioner department on salary of Rs. 150/- per month vide order 2 dated 17.9.1971 passed by Executive Engineer, Electricity Relay Construction Division, Moradabad and he was posted at 33, K.V.S. Station, Ram Nagar Satellite. The posting was temporary for certain period looking to the excessiveness of work. As per Board Order dated 12.10.1971, there was a provision for regularization of service for the employees, who have completed three years service. Pursuant to that order, services of the respondent no. 4 were regularized on the post of S.S.A. 4. The case of the respondent no. 4 is that presently he is working on the post of S.S.O. as Work charge and pursuant to the Board Order, his services were regularized on 16.9.1994. Respondent No. 4 has stated that as per the Board Rules, the employees get salary and pay-fixation benefits. The Board Rules are the Service Rules and the Employer are not competent to change the same. It has further been stated that the service of work charge is also added for the Time Scale as the same is also ad-hoc service. He has stated that some of the work charge employees have been benefited by being given the time scale. 5. Both the parties produced their respective evidence in support of their case. 6. The Labour Court vide order dated 29.11.1997 passed the award by recording a finding that the conduct of the employer in not increasing pay by including the service rendered by the workman as work charge in 3 regular service is unjustified and illegal. It has further been recorded that the workman is entitled to get increased salary by adding work charge service in regular service. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner / Employer filed a review application dated 4.9.1998 seeking review of the award dated 29.11.1997. Against the said review, a reply dated 12.11.1998 was filed by the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, a reply dated 19.11.1998 was also filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.5.1999, respondent no. 2 rejected the said review application. 8. I have gone through the award passed by the court below and I am of the view that the Labour Court nowhere fell into error while recording the said finding as the court below has taken into consideration each and every documents available on record and the unrebutted case laws referred by the workman regarding merger of work charge service in regular service and therefore, the findings recorded by the court below does not call for any interference and there is no infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the court below. The order passed by the court below is affirmed. 9. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27th August, 2008 Rathour