ORAL JUDGMENT :- The petitioner employer has challenged in this Writ Petition orders passed by the respondent No.2 Labour Court, Bhandara in proceedings under section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The proceedings were instituted by the respondent No. 1 with a grievance that though he was appointed and working as Laboratory Assistant, he was wrongly shown as Laboratory Attendant and he was paid salary in lower pay scale. He worked' out the difference at Rs. 54,742.55, for the period from 21-8-1990 and 31-12-1982 and that difference has been allowed by the Labour Court. This Court has while issuing Rule in the matter, directed the petitioner-employer to deposit 50% of the amount and has granted stay to the remaining part. The petitioner has accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs. 27,372/- with the Labour Court, Bhandara. This Court had also permitted the respondent No. 1 to withdraw that amount upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Labour Court.

2. The respondent - employee made grievance before the Labour Court, that he was appointed by order dated 12-8-1980 as Laboratory Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 205-355 and accordingly he was working on that post. He was discharging his duties as laboratory Sampler, but he was not paid wages in the pay scale for Laboratory Assistant and was paid wrongly in the scale meant for Laboratory Attendant i.e. Rs. 200-280.

3. The application was opposed by the present petitioner, who stated that there was no sanctioned post of laboratory Assistant. They further denied that pay scale of Laboratory Sampler is 205-355, which is the pay scale of laboratory assistant. They contended that the employee was previously appointed as laboratory attendant in Class-IV cadre and pay scale of Rs. 200-280 was paid accordingly.

4. The employee entered witness box and deposed in support of his claim.

He was cross-examined and it appears that the present petitioner did not enter the witness box. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced, and after hearing the parties passed the impugned orders.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Kothari, appearing for petitioner has contended that, the respondent-employee, was no doubt initially appointed as laboratory assistant by order dated 12-8-1980. However, he states that this was an error and it was corrected by the modification order dated 12-91985, in which it was specifically mentioned that the appointment order should

be read as appointment on the post of laboratory attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 200-280. He states that this order was also served upon the respondent employee and he further states that there was no sanctioned post of laboratory assistant with the petitioner. He argues that the post sanctioned was that of only laboratory attendant. He further invites attention to the fact that even salary for the post of Sampler was Rs. 200-280 i.e. equivalent to that of laboratory attendant. According to him, in view of this material and when there was specific defence before the Labour Court, that there was no sanctioned post of laboratory assistant, the Labour Court ought to have seen that there was no existing right in employee to enable him to claim the salary in the payscale of Rs. 205-355, as laboratory assistant. He argues that it was not necessary for petitioner to enter the witness box for this purpose. According to him in any case there is error apparent and the Labour Court has not approached the controversy in right perspective. He therefore submits that the matter may be remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

6. No body appears for respondent No.1 employee, though served.

7. Perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court clearly reveals that the petitioner have in defence stated that the post of laboratory assistant is not sanctioned. The documents which are produced on record, namely - modification order dt. 12-9-1985, further sho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document