M.R. Shah, J.@mdashBy way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Vadodara Municipal Corporation has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 10.6.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 96 of 1996 by which the dispute which was raised after a period of 16 years, the Industrial Tribunal has partly allowed the said reference by directing the petitioner to put the respondent in the pay-scale / grade of Supervisor i.e. Rs. 950 - 1500 from the date of making reference i.e. 1996.
2. The respondent was serving as a daily wager and on completion of 720 days, he was made permanent on the post on which he was serving i.e. Asami by order dated 26.7.1980. That he was put in the pay scale of Rs. 750-900 and althroughout till the respondent raised the industrial dispute after a period of 16 years, he was paid salary of Asami. After a period of 16 years, the respondent raised industrial dispute making grievance that as he was performing the duty as Supervisor, he was required to be paid salary in the pay scale / grade of Supervisor and instead, he has been paid salary of Asami. The said dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara being Reference (IT) No. 96 of 1996.
3. It is required to be noted at this stage that with respect to very dispute, the respondent raised another industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No. 28 of 1996. The said reference was registered by the respondent by submitting that the respondent was made permanent on the post on which he was initially serving as daily wager i.e. on the post of Asami in the year 1980 and he was appointed and/or performing duty as Supervisor / Supervisor Field Worker. It was also submitted that the second reference was not maintainable as very respondent workman had earlier raised industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No. 28 of 1996 and, therefore, the second reference was not maintainable. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after a period of 16 years, such reference is not required to be entertained. Despite the above and solely on the basis of I-Card and Medical Card in which designation of the respondent was stated to be Supervisor and despite the fact that there was specific finding by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent has failed to prove that he was performing the duty as Supervisor, the Industrial Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award directed the petitioner to put the respondent in the pay scale of Supervisor i.e. Rs. 950-1500 from the date of making the reference. The Tribunal further passed the order that the name of the workman may be deleted from earlier reference being Reference (IT) No. 28 of 1996.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 10.6.2002 passed in Reference (IT) No. 96 of 1996, the petitioner Vadodara Municipal Corporation has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as the dispute was raised after a period of 16 years, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the same and /or ought not to have allowed the said reference by directing the petitioner to put the respondent in the pay scale of Supervisor. He submitted that even otherwise on merit also, the Tribunal has committed error in directing the petitioner to put the respondent in the pay scale of Supervisor. He submitted that as such the Industrial Tribunal has specifically observed and found that the respondent has failed to prove that he was performing the duty as Supervisor. It is submitted that despite the above and solely on the basis of I-Card and Medical Card in which designation of the respondent is shown as Supervisor, the impugned judgment and award has been passed which deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5.1 It is further submitted by Mr. Desai that even the second reference was not maintainable at all as very respondent had earlier raised another dispute being Reference (IT) No. 28 of 1996. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in not drawing distinction between the post of Supervisor and Supervisor Field Worker. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.
6. The petition is vehemently opposed by Mr. R.D. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent workman. He submitted that on appreciation of evidence when the Industrial Tribunal has passed the order directing the petitioner to put the respondent in the pay scale of Supervisor i.e. Rs. 950-1500, no case is made out to interfere in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length.
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent was serving as daily wager Asami and on completion of 720 days and as per the policy and some awards declared by the Courts, the respondent was made permanent on the post on which he was serving as daily wager i.e. on the post of Asami by order dated 26.7.1980 and he was paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 750-900; that continued upto the year 1996. Nothing is on record in between to show that the respondent raised any objection. After a period of 16 years, the respondent raised the industrial dispute making grievance that he should have been paid salary or he should have been put in the pay scale of Supervisor i.e. Rs. 950-1500. Even for the very relief, in 1996 this very respondent raised the industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No. 28 of 1996 and despite the same, he raised another dispute being Reference (IT) No. 96 of 1996. It is to be noted that it is specific finding of the Industrial Tribunal that as such the respondent has failed to produce any evidence in support of his case that he was performing the duty as Supervisor. Despite the above finding, solely on the basis of I-Card and Medical Card in which his designation was shown to be Supervisor, the Industrial Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award that too after a period of 16 years.
9. It is required to be noted that as per the policy and some awards, the concerned workman was required to be made permanent on the post on which he was serving as daily wager Asami. He was made permanent on the said post and put in the pay scale of Rs. 750-900. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the finding that the respondent was serving as Supervisor is based on no evidence and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. At this stage, Mr. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that in view of the subsequent developments, the respondent might be entitled to the pay scale of Supervisor and, therefore, it is requested to make suitable observations that if otherwise the respondent is entitled to the pay scale of Supervisor, the present judgment shall not come in the way of the respondent.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 96 of 1996 dated 10.6.2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that if on any other ground the respondent is entitled to the pay scale of Supervisor, the present judgment shall not come in the way of the respondent. However, the respondent shall not be entitled to the pay scale of Supervisor in pursuance of the judgment and award which is now quashed and set aside by this Court.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
