ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to fix the present salary on par with other employees in the same cadre and to release the arrears of amount based on my representation dated 08.12.2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice to the Respondent is dispensed with, as no adverse order is going to be passed against the Respondent.

3. The petitioner was working as Driver in the respondent Transport Department and was dismissed from service on 24.02.2004. In an Industrial Dispute raised by the employee, the Labour in I.D.No.546 of 2004 passed an Award dated 22.01.2008, setting aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without back wages. Aggrieved by the Award of reinstatement, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.27487 of 2008 was filed and the same was dismissed by this Court on 23.07.2019, confirming the order of the Labour Court.

3.1. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the last drawn pay of Rs.6,593/- was paid and after the judgment, the petitioner was reinstated as Driver on 24.06.2020 on a payment of Rs.5,021/- from July, 2020 without taking into account the actual salary and emoluments that are applicable to other employees / Drivers in the respondent Management and that those employees are receiving Rs.50,000/- per month.

3.2. According to the petitioner, the gross salary was mentioned as Rs.4,072/- in December, 2020 and the net salary of Rs.2,372/- alone was paid. It is stated that he was initially getting a better payment pursuant to the interim direction and the amount was reduced on reinstatement. Hence, he made a representation dated 08.12.2020 to the respondent for fixation of a scale of pay on par with other employees in the same cadre and extend the benefits. It is further stated that the entire family is dependent on the income of the petitioner and with the meagre amount being received, he has been struggling to eke out their livelihood. It is prayed that this Court may issue a specific direction to the respondent to fix the salary on the basis of his representation dated 08.12.2020.

4. A scrutiny of the facts of the case unfolds that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.02.2004 and that he had the benefit of the Award of reinstatement without backwages in I.D.No.546 of 2004 dated 22.01.2008, which was also confirmed by an order of this Court dated 23.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.27487 of 2008. It is seen that the petitioner has artistically worded the prayer and is indirectly seeking to extend the benefit of revised wages on par with his counter part in the garb of disposal of the representation, which he is not eligible. Though the petitioner has stated that on reinstatement, his wages have been brought down, he has not produced any material documents in support of his claim of revision of wages and extension of benefits.

5. It is no doubt true that on reinstatement the petitioner would be entitled to wages on par with other employees, when he is given the benefit of continuity of service. If the petitioner is allowed to takes steps to prosecute the Management, unless or until the corporation is made as party to the proceedings, the prosecution cannot be sanctioned in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289. Since there are disputed questions of fact involved in this case and that the petitioner has also relied upon the aforesaid judgment, this Court wants to point out that when the petitioner seeks for implementation of the Award, it is open to him to seek the claim under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the admitted amount can be determined in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fabril Gasosa vs. Labour Commissioner, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 150 and in case of disputed amount, the disputed portion can be adjudicate