2018 Supreme(Jhk) 908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s Damodar Valley Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Their workmen Rep. by the DVC Karamchari Sangh and Another – Respondents
W.P. (L) Nos. 4307 of 2006, 3533 of 2011
Decided On : 28-03-2018

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - GAUGE READERS - SOIL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, HAZARIBAGH AND MAITHON - REFERENCE - AWARD - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - PERVERSE FINDING - QUASHING OF AWARD - WORKMEN NOT TO REFUND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-Management challenged the impugned award dated 31.07.2004 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the concerned workmen observing that the Gauge Readers working in DVC Soil Conservation Department, Hazaribagh are entitled to get the pay and other facilities which are being paid to the Gauge Readers working in DVC, Maithon from the date of the notification of the reference. The petitioner-Management claimed that the qualification, nature of duty, responsibility, mode of appointment of the Gauge Readers working at Hazaribagh were different from those of the Gauge Readers working in the DVC Maithon. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union submits that the concerned workmen were doing the similar work with the same responsibility and they were also holding the same qualification as the Gauge Readers of DVC Maithon.

Finding of the Court:

The learned Tribunal has committed error in not properly distinguishing/scrutinizing the nature of job/duty being performed by the Gauge Readers of Maithon and those of SCD, Hazaribagh. As per Ext. M/7 which is the work experience certificate of the Gauze Readers engaged at Maithon, they were engaged in the works of river/reservoir gauge observation, rain fall observation, discharge observation, sediment sampling and analysis, flood warning communication through VHF, maintenance of battery and battery charger whereas, Ext. W/4 which is a list of casual labourers working in the Soil Conservation (Engineering) Department, D.V.C. Hazaribagh, would show that the work of the Gauge Readers of the SCD, Hazaribagh was for collection of hydrological data during rainy season and recording the same in the register, taking stage (depth of water) reading in every three hours at normal times and at every 30 cms rise or fall at flood times; to take velocity of flow by stopwatch at every three hours at normal times and at flood peaks and recording rain fall by ordinary rain gauge. Thus, it would be evident that the Gauge Readers of Maithon were assigned the work at big river/reservoir even during night whereas, those of the SCD, Hazaribagh were assigned the work at small rivers, nalas and, therefore, both works cannot be said to be the same. There is also qualitative difference between the works of both sets of Gauge Readers, as those who were engaged at river side had more responsibility and risk in comparison to those who were engaged at small river/nalas/canal. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal failed to notice the said difference and came to an erroneous conclusion that Gauge Readers of Hazaribagh used to perform the similar duty to those of Maithon. Learned Tribunal itself observed in the impugned award that both works were not exactly identical. Once both works were not found to be identical and equal, the case of the respondent-Union claiming equal pay is not sustainable.

Issues: Whether the Gauge Readers working in DVC Soil Conservation Department, Hazaribagh are entitled to pay and other facilities equal to Gauge Readers working in DVC Maithon?

Ratio Decidendi: The nature of work, responsibilities, qualification, mode of appointment, geographical area as well as the source of payment of wages of both sets of workmen were different. Thus, there is no wholesome equality between both sets of workmen. Despite the fact that the learned Tribunal did not come to the concrete conclusion that both sets of workmen fall on the same footing, the impugned award was passed in favour of the concerned workmen claiming pay parity. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal appears to be perverse and is not based on legal evidence.

Final Decision: W.P. (L) No. 4307/2006 is allowed and the impugned award dated 31.07.2004 [Annexure-9 to W.P. (L) No. 4307 of 2006] passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 81 of 1996 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. Consequently, W.P. (L) No. 3533/2011 is also allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2011 [Annexure-3 to W.P. (L) No. 3533 of 2011] passed by the Presiding Officer- cum-authority, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in M.J. Case No. 6 of 2010.