Point of Law: Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India though is wide, but needs due care and great circumspection, while dealing with orders of Tribunals constituted under special legislations.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed award dated 15.01.2010 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 147 of 2002, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

2. Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by alleging that though the respondent had taken the work of Supervisor/Inspector from petitioner, but he was paid only the wages of Beldar. Thus, the petitioner claimed equal pay for equal work. He further alleged that his juniors were promoted/appointed as Inspector/Supervisor by wrongfully ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

3. The appropriate Government made the following reference for adjudication of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short, ‘the Tribunal’):-

^^fd D;k Jh jru yky lqiq= Jh [khou jke dkexkj ,oa lfpo yksd fuekZ.k etnwj ,drk ;wfu;u] f'keyk }kjk ekax i= fnukad 27-07-99 o 26-06-99 ¼Áfr;kWa lyaxu½ }kjk vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] fgekpy Áns'k yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx eaMy u- 1] f'keyk&1 ls twu 1994 ls ysdj dk;Z vuqlkj odZ bULisDVj dh osru dh ekax dh tkuk mfpr ,oa U;k; laxr gSa\ vxj gkWa] rks Jh jru yky lqiq= Jh [khou jke dkexkj fdl in] osru ,oa jkgr dk ik= gSa\**

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner submitted his claim petition claiming inter alia equal pay for equal work on the premise that he had worked as Supervisor/Inspector. Further relief of appointment as Inspector/Supervisor was sought since August, 1995 when his juniors allegedly were promoted to the said post. He further prayed for his regularization on the post of Inspector/Supervisor on completion of eight years.

5. The respondent contested the claim of petitioner before learned Tribunal. It was specifically denied that petitioner had ever worked as Supervisor/Inspector. As per respondent, there was no post of Inspector in the HPPWD. As regards the persons with whom petitioner had sought parity, it was submitted that their names found mention in the muster-rolls of Supervisor, whereas the petitioner was engaged as Beldar since beginning and was never deputed to work as Supervisor.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the demand of the petitioner to claim the pay of work inspector from June, 1994 is justified? If so, its effect?...OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?..OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition due to his own conduct? OPR

5. Relief.

All the issues were decided in negative and the reference was also answered in negative by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

7. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of material on record returned categoric finding of fact that petitioner had failed to prove his employment as Inspector/Supervisor. Accordingly, learned Tribunal rejected the claim of petitioner. As regards the claim to the post of Supervisor/Inspector raised by the petitioner, it was held that no such reference was before the Tribunal in that regard.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal on the grounds that the same is perverse being against the material on record. He placed strong reliance on document Ext. PW-1/D, which according to him was a certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Vidhan Sabha, Shimla certifying the job of petitioner to be that of Supervisor/Inspector. He further contended that learned Tribunal had erred in ignoring such an important piece of evidence.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the award on the ground that there was no evidence worth the name to prove that petitioner had ever worked as Supervisor/Inspector.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

11. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of I