The Labour Court has jurisdiction to direct creation of post if a reference is made to it.

The award dated 28-11-1987 passed in Adjudication case No 172 of 1986 by the Labour Court Gorakbpur is under challenge in Represent writ petition. Mr. B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court had come to a perverse finding on the basis of the material on record to the effect that the workman was performing the duty of pump Supervisor.

2. He contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of the workman in the post of pump Supervisor in the absence of any post of pump supervisor. According to him the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to direct the Government to create post. He relies on several judgments with regard to his contention which will be dealt with at a later stage in appropriate manner.

3 The leaned counsel for the respondent on the other hand con tends that the finding that the workman was performing the job of pump Supervisor is a finding of fact with which writ court ordinarily is very slow interfering. Therefore, this court should not interfere with the said finding of fact. According to him Labour Court is empowered to direct creation of post while adjudicating an industrial dispute. Therefore, the decision cited by Mr. Mandyan at the bar in support of his contention that the court cannot direct creation of post does not apply. According to him creation of post is ancillary direction flowing from the award itself. The Court therefore can direct creation of post.

4 I have heard Mr. Mandhyan for the petitioner, Mr. Shyam Narain for the respondent and Mr. Huda Standing counsel for the state.

5 I have also perused the English translation of the award furnished by the counsel for the petitioner. A reading of the said award indicates that the Labour Court had discussed the material placed before it.

On the basis of the materials after scrutinizing the same, the Labour Court has come to a finding particularly on the basis of the record of the petitioner itself that the workman was discharging the function and duties of a pump supervisor It was under his supervision, the pump operators were working Various instructions were issued to him from time to time addressing him as pump Supervisor by the petitioner itself which were also endorsed by the workman. It is also found that the petitioner has re commended appointment of the workman in the post of pump Supervisor for which they had made requisition to the State Government for creation of the post The said facts could not be disputed in the course of hearing by Mr. Mandhyan. Therefore on the face of the reasons given in the award itself it is hardly possible to say that there was any kind of perver sity in the said reasoning. After having gone through the English translation of the award I have been unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission of Mr. Mandhyan. that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse.

6. Admittedly the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the workman had been discharging the duties and functions of pump Super visor. It has also been found that the scale of different employees of the Nagar Mahapalika are being paid according to the scales recommended in the pay Commission Report. The learned Labour Court has found that a scale for pump Supervisor is provided in the said recommendation. There fore, it cannot be said that there is no perception of the post of pump Supervisor in the Nagar Mahapalika when the Labour Court had found from the records placed before it that the Nagar Palika itself had sought for sanction of the post of pump Supervisor. Therefore the Labour Court had every jurisdiction to direct fixation of pay of the workman in the scale of pump Supervisor. Such a direction is a natural consequence of the finding that the petitioner was getting the work of pump Supervisor from the workman. Against the work done as pump Supervisor the petitioner is bound to pay the workman payment for pump Supervisor. In case though the pet