The court reaffirmed the limits of Article 226 jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for clear evidence when disputing determined pay scales for workmen.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The case at hand is a Writ Petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner/Delhi Jal Board in the present case is aggrieved by the Award dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. III in I.D. No. 126/99 titled M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner v. Its Workman Sh. Prem Ram (hereinafter referred to as "impugned award").

2. In the impugned award, learned Labour Court had held the respondent/workman to be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.210-290 (revised from time to time) w.e.f. 02.05.1977 and also the difference of wages thereof. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby setting aside the award.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The respondent/workman was employed by the Petitioner as a cleaner in ad-hoc capacity vide letter dated 31.03.1977. The respondent/workman joined his duties with effect from 01.04.1977 with a pay scale of Rs.196-240.

4. According to the respondent/workman, the Petitioner placed the Respondent in the wrong pay scale of Rs.196-240 which had been revised to 750-940 with effect from 01.01.1986. Whereas the prescribed pay scale for the post of cleaner was Rs.210-290 which had been revised to Rs.800-1150. It is the case of the respondent/workman that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.210-290 from the initial date of his joining which had been revised to Rs.800-1150.

5. As per the respondent/workman, he approached the Petitioner a number of times and requested it to give him salary in the proper pay scale. However, upon the Petitioner paying no heed to his entreaties, he was constrained to serve a demand notice dated 09.03.1998 upon the Petitioner through his Union (Municipal Employees' Union). The respondent/workman submitted that the Petitioner failed to reply to the abovementioned notice. The conciliation proceedings allegedly started by the respondent/workman also failed due to the non-cooperative stance adopted by the Petitioner. The abovementioned set of facts gave rise to an industrial dispute.

6. In response to the Industrial Dispute raised by the respondent/workman, the appropriate Government referred the same to Industrial Tribunal No. III in I.D. No. 126/99 vide order of reference dated 15.10.1999, with the following terms of reference:

"Whether Sh. Prem Ram, cleaner, is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.210-290 (revised from time to time) w.e.f. 02.05.1977 instead of Rs.196-232 and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"

7. Pursuant to this, the respondent/workman filed his statement of claim dated 01.12.1999 to which the Petitioner filed its Written Statement on 21.03.2000 resisting the claim of the workman and averring that the reference had been made mechanically.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:

i. "As per the terms of reference.

ii. Whether the reference was mechanical as alleged?

iii. Whether the claim is not maintainable for the reasons stated in para no. 2 to 4 of the preliminary objections of the WS?"

9. To support their case, the Petitioner/Management examined Shri B.K. Pandey, Administrative Officer, as MW1 who tendered his affidavit Ex. MW1/A along with documents Ex. MW1/1 and Ex. MW1/2 (Gazette Notificat