General Manager, Ajudhia Textile ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
1990 Latest Caselaw 132 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) This writ petition is filed against the Award of the Labour Court dated 13.10.87, passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding that the respondent was performing the duties of a Chief Clerk in the Excise Department of the petitioner between January 1979 to January 1983, and was entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,035/40 by way of difference of wages.

(2) Admittedly the respondent was working as a Junior Clerk in the General Department of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the hierarchy is Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk and then Chief Clerk. By order dated 21.1.79 the petitioner made a transfer order in relation to seven persons, including the respondent, from one Department to another. The respondent was transferred from the General Section to the Excise Section in place of Mr. Inderjit Rampal. The contention of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that this was only a normal transfer to a different department and it was not intended' as a promotion to the post of Chief Clerk. Chief Clerk is the second promotional post and a Junior Clerk cannot be directly appointed as a Chief Clerk unless he is first appointed as a Senior Clerk. The petitioners further contend that there is no post of a Chief Clerk in the Excise Department.

(3) On the other hand, the contention of the respondent-workman is that he was doing all the work which previously was being done by Inderjit Rampal, who was the Chief Clerk in the Excise Department. Since he was doing the work equal the Chief Clerk 'on the principle of equal pay for equal work' he is entitled to the salary of the post of Chief Clerk.

(4) On the behalf of the petitioner it was argued that apart from their objections to the claim of the respondent, the claim put-forth by the respondent cannot be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that no objection was raised in the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court and the question is being raised for the first time in the arguments in this Court. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that their did not exist the post of Chief Clerk in the Excise Department was also not raised in the written statement and was being argued for the first time in the Court. According to him the only contention before the Labour Court was that there was no specific order appointing the respondent as Chief Clerk in the Excise Department. Amongst the rival contentions of facts and law, the emerging situation is that there is no evidence to show that their existed the post of Chief Clerk in the Excise Department. No evidence is produced by either side as to what are the specific duties of Chief Clerk, particularly, in the Excise Department. Mr. Inderjit Rampal was confirmed as a Chief Clerk when he was working in the Excise Department.

(5) It is an admitted fact that after the respondent started working in the Excise Department, he had made number of representations for getting the salary of the post of Chief Clerk. Counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice two such representations on which the Sales Officer in the Excise Department has recommended the payment of higher salary to the respondent. The question to be answered by the Labour Court was not whether the respondent was appointed as a Chief Clerk. In other words, the question was not as to what was the exact legal status of the respondent, whether as a Junior Clerk as a Senior Clerk or as Chief Clerk. The real question before the Labour Court was that if the respondent was performing all the duties which the Chief Clerk in the Excise Department was supposed to perform, was he not entitled to the salary of the post of Chief Clerk ? This certainly is an issue for the Labour Court to decide under Section 33-c of the Act.

(6) The Labour Court has gone through the entire evidence produced by the Management and the workman and has come to the conclusion that the respondent was, in fact, doing the work of Chief Clerk in the Excise Department. I have been taken through the evidence adduced before the Labour Court and I am satisfied that the conclusion and findings, as arrived by the Labour Court in this regard, are correct. The Supreme Court has now, in several decisions, laid down that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable even where the post or designation is not the same. What is important is whether there is similarity of job or work. The Labour Court has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chameli v. State of U.P., 1986 Scc (1) 637. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corp. (Writ Petition No. 100 of 1988, decided on December, 15. 1989), the Supreme Court has even gone to the extent that even if the person is not qualified to hold a particular post or is not appointed according to the rules, he is still entitled to the salary of a person regularly appointed on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(7) There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.