Case: P. K. Singh and Others Vs. Presiding Officer and Others

2. The appellants filed the applications under Section) of the Act for computation of the wages payable to them for certain periods as detailed in the respective petitions. Their case was that even though they had been engaged as C Grade Fitters, they were entitled to the salary and allowances payable to B Grade Fitters, since they were doing the same duties as B Grade Fitters. The management contested the applications filed by the appellants stating that they were not maintainable since the principal question involved in all the applications related to then of the workmen concerned and that such a relief could not be claimed under Section) of the Act. The Central Government Industrialr Court upheld the objection of the management and rejected the applications by its common order dated February 14, 1979. Aggrieved by the said common order the appellants filed this appeal by special leave

Court's reasoning:
7. The decision of this Court in R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Nagpur [(1972) 1 SCC 154 : (1972) 2 SCR 580 ] is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In the said case the only dispute was whether workmen were not entitled tof compensation. The management in that case contended that the business had been closed and the workmen were not entitled tof compensation. This Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that the business of the company was continuing and that the Labour Courts jurisdiction could not be ousted by a mere plea denying the workmens claim to the computation of benefit in terms of money. It was also held that the Labour Court in the circumstances had to go into the matter and come to a decision as to whether there was really a closure or a. If in the present case the claim of the appellants was that they had been actually promoted to B Grade Fitters cadre and that the management had denied that there was such promotion, the Labour Court would have been under an obligation to determine whether there was such a promotion or not. But the case of the workmen before us is that they should be classified as B Grade Fitters even though they had been appointed as C Grade Fitters merely because they had been performing the duties which were similar to duties of B Grade Fitters8. The decision of the Gujarat High Court rendered by Thakkar, C. J. (as he then was) in V. M. Vankar (Macwana) v. Indian Farmers Fertiliser [1984 Lab IC 1342 : 1983 Guj LH 586] is again of no assistance to the appellants. In that case there was a settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen and under the said settlement persons working as Conveyer Attendants, Bag Stitchers, Bag Fillers and Pointsmen were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.. The complaint of the workman concerned was that even though he was performing the duties of persons in the above category, he was being paid as per the pay scale of workmen in a lower category, i.e., the pay scale of Rs.. In that case the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Labour Court was required to decide whether the workman concerned was doing the work of an employee who was in the category which carried a higher pay scale or was doing the work of an employee in a category which carried a lower pay scale for the purpose of granting relief to the workman. The question of promotion from a lower post to a higher post or of the passing of a trade test for the purpose of securing such promotion was not involved in that case9. In any view of the matter we feel that there is no ground to set aside the order of the Central Government Industrialr Court against which this appeal is filed.