LexP.K. SINGH AND OTHERS versus PRESIDING OFFICER & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P.K. SINGH AND OTHERS
A
v.
PRESIDING OFFICER & OTHERS
JULY 15, 1988
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OIBA, JJ.)
B
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: ss. 10(1) and 33C(2)-Work-
men-'C' Grade Fitters doing work of 'B' Grade Fitters-Claim for
higher wages-Admissibility of-Not entitled to relief unless duly pro-
moted or reclassified.
The appellant engaged as 'C' Grade Fitters in a Central Govern-
ment Undertaking filed applications nuder s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial
DisJilutes Act, I947 for computation of wages payable to them for cer-
tain periods. Their case before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was that since they were doing the same
duties which were performed by a 'B' Grade Fitter, they were entitled
to claim wages payable to 'B' Grade Fitters. Tbe Management con-
tended that since the principal question involved in all the applications
related to re-classification of the workmen concerned, a relief which
could not be claimed under s. 33-C(2) of the Act, these were not main-
tainable. The Tribunal rejected the applications by a common order.
In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the workmen
that they should be classified as 'B' Grade Fitters even though they had
been appointed as 'C' Grade Fitters because they had been performing
the duties which were similar to the duties of 'B' Grade Fitters.
c
D
E
Dismissing the appeal,
F
HELD: I. I A workman cannot put forward a claim in an applica-
tion filed under s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I947 in
respect of the relief which is not based on an existing right and which
can be appropriately the subject-matter of an industrial dispute requir-
ing a reference nnders. IO of the Act. [47SC-D)
G
1.2 By merely doing the same kind of work which is done by a
senior grade workman, a junior grade workman will not be entitled to
claim the wages of senior grade unless he is duly promoted. Such a
workman cannot complain that he is not being paid the salary and
allowances due to a senior grade workman, since he does not possess an
H
471
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A
existing right to daim it. If on an adjudication made on the said ques-
Hort on a reference made under s. 10(1) of the Act, it is held that he
should be deemed to be a member of the senior cadre, then only he
would b-e able to claim the salary and allowances payable to senior
grade workmen. [474G-H; 475A-Bl
c
Central Bank of India Lt& Vā¢ p,,s, Rajagopalan etc.; !19641 3
S.C.R. i40; State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v; Khandelwal (R.L.);
[1968] I LL.J. 589 and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v; Gopal
Sahal Pareek, [i968] 1 L.L.J. 593, referred to.
R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Nagpur
& 'Ors,, [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580 and V.M. Vankar (Macwana) v. Indian
Fa'rniets Fertilizer, [1984] Lab. J.C. 1342, distinguished.
1.3 In the instant case, the appellants had been employed as 'C'
Grade Fitters and in order to get the salary and allowances p.iyable to
'B' Grade Fitters they had to be promJted to the cadre of 'B' Grade
D
Fitters on their passing certain trade tests. They had not been so promo-
ted. The claim of the appellants, therefore, is not tenable. [473D-E]
2. it is open to the workmen, if tliey are so advised; to seek a
reference of the questii>n whether they are entiiled lo be treated as 'B;
Grad~ Fitters under s. IO of the Act. [476E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2640{L) of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1978 of the Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court New Delhi in L.C.A.
F
Nos. 389, 391-393; 395-406 of 1978.
Mrs. Utmila Kapur Advocate. for the Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan, Miss A. Subhashini, R.P. Srivastava and C.V.
Suooa Rao felt ihe Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal oy special leave is filed by
16 workineti of the Sinall Arins Fatioty, kanpuf against the common
Order daie<l i4th Fehruaty; i979 passed liy iiie Cenifal Govemirieni
H
industrial Trib!mal-cum'Labdtir Courl, Aliptir Rdad, Dellii iii appi.ica'
P.K. SINGH v. PRESIDING OFFICER [VENKATARAMIAH-, J.]
473
tions bearing LC.A. Nos. 389, 391 to 393 and 395 to 406 of 1978
filed under section 33-C(2) of. the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafte1 referred to as 'the Act') rejecting their claims.
The appellants filed the applications under section 33-C(2) of the
Act for computation of the wages payable to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.