Orissa High Court
Government Of Orissa And Ors. vs Prafulla Kumar Patnaik And Ors. on 22 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 100(2005)CLT100
Author: M.M. Das
Bench: M.M. Das
JUDGMENT M.M. Das, J.
1. In this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Orissa in its Water Resources Department being the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 66 of 1994.
2. The facts as revealed discloses that the names of opposite parties 1 to 7 workmen were sponsored by the concerned employment exchange for being appointed in the post of hand drillers in the scale of pay of Rs. 100-155/- with usual D.A. and A.D.A. However, by appointment orders dated 3.10.1972 and 13.10.1972, they were appointed as hand drillers, on being selected in an interview in the office of the Hydrologist Lift Irrigation, Bhubaneswar. It is the case of the workmen that in the orders of appointment, the scale of pay was mentioned as Rs. 80-120/- instead of Rs. 100-155/-. However, the workmen joined in the said posts of hand drillers, with protest. The scale of pay of hand drillers was revised on 1.1.1974, 1.1.1981, 1.1.1985 and 1.5.1989. They made representations for fixing their scale of pay accordingly. Due to non-consideration of their representations, one of the workmen-opp. parties filed O.J.C. No. 6939 of 1980 before this Court. The said Writ Application was disposed of with a direction. It appears that the Opp. Parties workmen raised an industrial dispute and as the same was not referred to the Tribunal, they again filed O.J.C. No. 8305 of 1993 before this Court, in which it was directed to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. There being delay in referring the matter, the workmen Opp. Parties again filed O. J.C. No. 3691 of 1994, but on the submission of the Government of Orissa in the said Writ Application that the matter has already been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, the case was disposed of.
3. As stated above, a reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to as 'the Act') to the following effect, was made to the Industrial Tribunal :
"Whether S/Sri Prafulla Kumar Patnaik, Nisakar Mallick, Bijaya Kumar Das, Laxmidhar Parida, Bamadev Kundu, Bairagi Swain and Gangadhar Samantray, now working as Hand-Drillers under different divisions of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar are eligible to get the scale of pay of Rs. 100-150/- (in the pre-revised scale of 1974) as per advertisement made for such posts and the corresponding revised scale of pay made thereafter from time to time from the date of their joining in the said post, and as enjoyed by other Hand-Drillers in the same establishment ? If so, what should be the details ?"
4. The said case was numbered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 66 of 1994. A written statement/claim was filed by the workmen stating inter alia that the scale of pay as mentioned in the call letters, issued to the Opp. Parties workmen to attend the interview, was Rs. 100-155/-, however, in the appointment letters it being mentioned as Rs. 80-120/- they protested against the same. It was further stated that the nature of work to be done by hand drillers under the Lift Irrigation Corporation is same as done by hand drillers working under the Directorate of Ground Water Survey and Investigation and that hand drillers working under the said Directorate who were engaged during the period when the Opp. Parties were appointed, were given the scale of pay of Rs. 100-155/- on the above basis, the workmen claimed that the scale of pay applicable to them at the time of their appointment should be taken Rs. 100-155/- and they should be held entitled to receive their salary at the revised rates as revised from time to time and as were being paid to hand drillers working under the Directorate of Ground Water Survey and Investigation.
5. The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar on receiving the reference and the written statements filed by both the parties, framed issues, received oral and documentary evidence as adduced and after hearing, passed the impugned award which is annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure-1, holding that the Opp. Parties workmen now working as hand drillers in different divisions of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation and in the office of the Directorate of Ground Water Survey and Investigation are eligible to get the scale of pay of Rs. 100-155/- from the date of their joining and corresponding to the revised scale of pay introduced from time to time. The said award under Annexure-1 was passed on 28.1.1999. The Government of Orissa in its Ground Water Survey and Investigation Department has filed this Writ Application on 7.11.2002, challenging the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
6. Learned Counsel for the State contended that in view of the fact that no documentary evidence was produced by the workmen Opp. Parties in support of their claim, by mis-interpreting the principle laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19, the Presiding Officer without due application of mind, wrongly held that the nature of work performed by the hand drillers under the Lift Irrigation Scheme are same and similar to that of the hand drillers who are engaged and appointed under the Ground Water Survey and Investigation Department. The further case of the petitioners is that an employee is bound by the terms and conditions of the appointment order given to him and having accepted the same wherein the scale of pay was mentioned as Rs. 80-120/-, it is not open for the workmen Opp. Parties to claim a different scale of pay.
7. A return has been filed by the Opp. Parties workmen, inter alia, stating that there is no illegality committed by the Presiding. Officer, Industrial Tribunal, in answering the reference under the impugned award in favour of the workmen. It is further stated that the nature of work of hand drillers working under the Lift Irrigation Corporation are similar to that as done by such hand drillers who are working under the petitioners and that from the very inception, as there was a variance in the scale of pay mentioned in the call letters and the appointment orders, the Opp. Parties have protested to the same and have repeatedly made representations to the concerned authorities which is evident from the fact that they have previously filed Writ Application before this Court for inaction in disposing of their representations.
8. Learned Counsel for the workmen Opp. Parties has vehemently argued that when the workmen filed appropriate application for execution of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in order to prevent payment of their legitimate dues as per the award, the Government has filed the present Writ Application after more than three and half years from the date of passing of the award by the Industrial Tribunal and as such, the Writ Application should be dismissed in limine on account of delay and laches.
9. On perusal of the award under Annexure-1, I find that neither the present petitioners nor the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the Opp. Parties workmen. The Presiding Officer has meticulously scanned the oral and documentary evidence produced by the workmen, in coming to the finding that the case of the management that the job of hand drillers under the Lift Irrigation and that under the Ground Water Survey and Investigation were different, is not correct.
10. Learned Counsel for the workmen Opp. Parties has also submitted that the ratio of the decision in the case of J. P. Chaurasia (supra) has also been discussed in detail by the Presiding Officer in the impugned award. I find from the award under Annexure-1 that the Presiding Officer has come to a categorically finding that as the Managing Director of the Lift Irrigation Corporation in Exts. 4 & 5 has also supported the case of the workmen and has corresponded with the Government to the effect that the nature of work to be performed by the workmen in the present case is similar to those hand drillers who were appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 100-155/-on that basis also the claim of the Opp. Parties workmen can be accepted.
11. Further, I find that the present Writ Application is also not entertainable due to delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, as the petition has been filed after lapse of more than three and half years from the date of the impugned award. I also do no find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the impugned award and as such, the said award under Annexure-1 does not call for any interference.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed but in the circumstances, without cost's.