Amareshwar Sahay, J.@mdashIn this Writ Application, the petitioner M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Unit-Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City. Bokaro has challenged the Order dated 28.8.1999 as contained in Annexure 22 to the Writ Application by which, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (Respondent No. 1) allowed the application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav (Respondent No. 2) holding that the applicant (Harihar Prasad Yadav) was entitled to get the present pay scale which was given to Shri D.L. Burnwal and he was entitled to get Rs. 1,86,816.54 paise only and since he was already paid a sum of Rs. 51,913.68 paise and as such, the Management was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,34,902.86 paise to him.
2. The facts in short are that Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav (Respondent No. 2 herein) was appointed as Senior Operative Trainee (S.O.T.) along with several others including one Shri D.L. Burnwal in the year 1971 and both of them were having educational qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. After completion of training, both of them were posted in Water Supply Department as Chargeman Grade III in L-6 Grade in January, 1973. In the year 1978, Shri D.L. Burnwal enhanced his qualification by obtaining AMIE Degree whereas, the Respondent No. 2 obtained AMIE Degree on 6.10.1988.
In January, 1979, an internal Circular was issued for filling up the post of Assistant Foreman (Mech.) in E-l Grade for Works Division within the Plant and for which, some prescribed criteria including qualification and experience were fixed. Total 83 candidates from all over the Plant including the present Respondent No. 2 Harihar Prasad Yadav and Shri D.L. Burnwal applied and both of them appeared in the selection test and interview and thereafter, total 31 candidates including Shri D.L. Burnwal were selected for those posts. The Respondent No. 2 Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav was not found suitable and therefore, was not selected to the post of Assistant Foreman (Mech.) in E-1 Grade. Accordingly, in August, 1980, those selected 31 candidates were given appointment to the post of Assistant Foreman (Mech.) in E-1 Grade.
3. Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav (Respondent No. 2) filed a Complaint Petition u/s 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Bokaro challenging his supercession in the year 1976 which was registered as M.J.C. No. 13/81. The Labour Court, by Award dated 10.12.1990 (Annexure-1) held firstly that the service condition of the complainant was altered in contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act while there was Industrial Dispute pending in which, the complainant was a concerned workman and secondly, by adopting unfair labour practice, the Management wrongly superseded the workman and therefore, the workman was entitled to same promotional benefits in Chargeman Grade II from the year, 1976 itself and he was entitled to get all consequential benefits and subsequent promotion from the date in which all his juniors were given promotion to the higher grade and he was entitled to maintain seniority over S.P. Chourasia,'' S.K. Nandi, R.A. Prasad and other junior persons with all consequential benefits.
4. The Management implemented the Award of the Labour Court and granted promotions to the Respondent No. 2 Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav upto the ran of Assistant Manager, E-2 Grade but he was not given the arrears of pay. Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav challenged the said action of the Management by filing a Writ Application being C.W.J.C. No. 2808 of 1992 (R) wherein, he alleged, that the Award of the Labour Court was improperly implemented and the Management awarded him only notional benefits without any monetary benefits. In the said Writ Application, this Court, by order dated 24.2.1993 (Annexure-14) directed the Management to pay the entire arrears of pay to Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav. The Management, in compliance of the order of this Court, issued a letter dated 6/7.4.1993 to the petitioner (Respondent No. 2 herein) as contained in Annexure 15 calculated, computed and refixed the pay of Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav from 8.6.1976 to 31.10.1991 and paid him Rs. 51,951.19 paise against his pay, D.A. and other allowances. Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav thereafter filed a Contempt Application being M.J.C. No. 386 of 1993 (R) before this Court against the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant and other officers alleging therein that he was not brought at par with Shri D.L. Burnwal. The Management contended that since Shri D.L. Burnwal, who was having better qualification then that of Shri Yadav and further that since Sri Burnwal had already been appointed to the post of Assistant Foreman (Mech.) E-1 Grade in which, Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav though also appeared but was not selected and therefore, he could not be equated with Shri D.L. Burnwal. This Court, by order dated 25.10.1994, dropped the contempt proceeding.
Thereafter, one another Contempt Application being M.J.C. No. 368 of 1994 (R) was filed by Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav but that Contempt Application was also dismissed on merit in the year 1995. Thereafter, Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav filed an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, by impugned order dated 28.8.1999, allowed the said application as already stated in paragraph 1 above.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner Steel Authority of India Limited is that the Labour Court committed serious illegality in deciding the seniority between the Complainant Harihar Prasad Yadav (Respondent No. 2 herein) vis-a-vis Shri D.L. Burnwal on an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and thereby, acted beyond the jurisdiction and scope of application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and further that the Labour Court did not consider the point that Shri D.L. Burnwal, on his selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Foreman (Mech.) became an employee of higher cadre than that of Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav, the Complainant and therefore, they could not have been equated with each other. Accordingly, it is contended that the Complainant should not have been given the same promotional and monetary benefits in the Executive Cadre equivalent to Shri D.L. Burnwal.
On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2 Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav though has not disputed the fact that he and Shri D.L. Burnwal both appeared in the selection test and in the interview for the post of Assistant Foreman (Mech.) and Shri D.L. Burnwal was promoted to the said post but, according to him, he was denied promotion considering some adverse confidential remarks which were never communicated to him. According to the Respondent No. 2, the Labour Court has already passed the Award (Annexure 1) whereby, it was held that the concerned workman (Harihar Prasad Yadav) was wrongly superseded in the year 1976 and his juniors were given promotion and by the said Award, he was given the relief of promotion which was granted to his juniors.
6. According to learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, the Labour Court rightly allowed the application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the Management to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,34,902.86 paise to Shri Yadav.
7. Having heard the parties and after going through the impugned order passed by the Labour Court and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since Shri D.L. Burnwal was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (E-2 Grade) after appearing in the selection, test and interview etc. in which, the respondent No. 2 Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav also appeared but was not selected and therefore, it cannot be said that both were in the same cadre. As a matter of fact, after his promotion/appointment, Shri D.L. Burnwal went in the higher grade than that of the respondent No. 2. As already noticed earlier that the respondent No. 2 was considered for the said post but he was not selected.
Therefore, said Harihar Prasad Yadav cannot make any grievance against his non selection to the post of Assistant Manager (Mech.) in which, Shri D.L. Burnwal was selected and appointed. The Labour Court, by the impugned Order could not have gone to decide the inter se seniority between Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav (Respondent No. 2) and Shri D.L. Burnwal which was not the subject matter before him on the application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by Shri Yadav (Respondent No. 2). Even in Annexure 1, the Award of the Labour Court, it was not decided that Shri H.P. Yadav was entitled to get the same benefit of promotion etc. as that of Shri D.L. Burnwal. The learned Labour Court apparently went beyond the scope of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in passing the impugned order and giving direction to the management to pay a sum of Rs. 1,34,902.86 to the Respondent No. 2 Shri Harihar Prasad Yadav.
In view of the discussions and findings above, I come to the conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this Writ Application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court dated 28.8.1999 (Annexure 22) is hereby set aside.Application allowed.
