Bal Kishore Ram vs Employers In Relation To The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2043 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                            W.P.(L) No. 4408 of 2017
       Bal Kishore Ram                                             .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
       Employers in relation to the Management of Kargali Washery
       represented through the Project Officer, Kargali, Bermo, Bokaro
                     .                                             .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondent(s)/CCL : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate ......

07/ 06.06.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that petitioner [Bal Kishore Ram] has preferred the instant Writ Petition against the Award dated 24.01.2017 notified on 21.03.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad, in I.D. No.35/2013, whereby and whereunder, the learned Court below has been pleased to hold that there is no anomaly in fixation of Basic Pay since January, 1977 of the petitioner, Ex-Workman of Kargali Washery of M/s CCL and he is not entitled to get any relief.

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the Central Government, Ministry of Labour by Order No.L- 20012/27/2013/ IR / [CM-I] dated 22.08.2013 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the demand of settlement of anomaly in Basic Pay since Jan.1977 to Sh. B. K. Ram, Ex-workman of Kargali Washery of M/s CCL is justified or not? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- Workman has further submitted, that as per the case of the workman, the concerned Workman was appointed as Category-I Mazdoor at Kargali Washery on 17.05.1974 on the basic of 26 days V.D.A. and Sri K. K. Dey and Sri M. N. Gupta was appointed as Security Guard on the basic of 30 days VDA in 1973. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that there was departmental promotion in the year 1977 of above three workmen in the LDC vide order dated 10.01.1977 on the same scale. It has specifically been mentioned that their service condition will be guided under the wage Board Rules and certified standing order.

Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- Workman has further submitted, that one Shri S. Thomas was also appointed on 17.05.1974 in Category-I Mazdoor along with concerned workman on the basic of 26 days VDA

and later on his pay was fixed on the basic of 30 days VDA along with Sri K. K. Dey. This is glaring example of discrimination, as such, the finding recorded by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad, is bad in law and this Hon'ble Court may interfere with the same, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned AC to Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent- CCL has submitted, that the learned Tribunal has considered such reference after superannuation of the concerned workman and it is a stale matter, where the pay anomaly has been raised after more than long 36 years.

Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned AC has further submitted, that the case of Sri K. K. Dey and Sri M. N. Gupta have been considered and it was found different from the case of present petitioner- Bal Kishore Ram. The learned Tribunal has considered the same in Paras-13 and 14 of the impugned Award considering that persons have been appointed on different posts and different pay scales and to that effect workman was not entitled to get anything as no anomaly was found by the Tribunal, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the entire materials available on record including the impugned Award, it appears that dispute has been raised by the concerned workman after his superannuation and that too, after a long time i.e. 36 years with regard to pay anomaly of the year 1977 showing the pay scale of Sri K. K. Dey and Sri M. N. Gupta, whose induction in service is on different posts and different scale, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned Award as the learned Tribunal has passed Award/judgment, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/