High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. R.S. Sankar - WRIT - C No. 30591 of 1992  RD-AH 12557 (20 July 2007)
Judgment reserved on 4.7.2007
Judgment delivered on 20.7.2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30591 of 1992
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Swaroop and others
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 68 of 1989. The dispute that had been referred to the Labour Court was whether the employers were justified in not giving the designation of skilled workman and wages for the said post to the respondent-workman and if so to what relief the workman was entitled to. The Labour Court has given the award in favour of the workman and has held that the respondent-workman was entitled to the designation and the wages of a skilled workman w.e.f. 1.4.1989. In coming to this conclusion the Labour Court has observed that the respondent-workman was performing the same work as was performed by Sukhram who had been designated as a skilled workman.
The case set up before the Labour Court on behalf of the respondent-workman was though he was appointed in the workshop on 23.8.1978 for doing technical work in turner trade, yet he was not designated as a skilled workman even though he was performing the same work as was being performed by the skilled workman. On behalf of the Corporation it was pleaded before the Labour Court that in the workshop there were only 21 posts of skilled workmen but 22 workmen were working as skilled workmen and, therefore, the claim put forward by the respondent-workman was not justified. It was further pleaded that in the workshop there were many unskilled, semiskilled, skilled and specialist workmen and the promotion was made from one post to another on the basis of the seniority and reservation quota. It was also stated that the respondent-workman was at Sl. No. 44 in the seniority list of semi skilled workmen. He had been appointed as an unskilled workman in the Corporation on 6.11.1980 and thereafter had been promoted to the post of semi skilled workman and the subsequent promotion to the post of skilled workman could have been made if there was any vacancy and on the basis of seniority and reservation quota. Before the Labour Court the workman examined himself while on behalf of the Corporation Sri Saheb Saran Upadhyaya, who was a Senior Foreman in the Central Workshop was examined. The workman stated that he was doing the same work as was being done by Sukhram prior to his retirement. In his cross-examination, however, he admitted that on 8.9.1988 he was promoted as a semiskilled workman on the basis of the seniority from the post of unskilled workman. He also stated that it was only on the basis of the work being performed by him that he wanted the designation of a skilled workman. Sri Saheb Saran Upadhyaya, Senior Foreman in the Workshop, who had been appeared as a witness on behalf of the employers, stated that in the Workshop various machines had been installed which were being operated by various workmen holding the post of unskilled workman to specialist grade. He also stated that no specific duties were assigned to the workman belonging to a particular post and even after promotion there may not be any change in the nature of the work being performed by the workman. It is only on the basis of experience and seniority that promotion was given. He specifically stated that the workman was a semiskilled workman.
The Labour Court observed that the dispute was not regarding promotion but regarding designation and only on the statement made that the workman was performing the same work as was being performed by Sukhram who was designated as a skilled workman that the Labour Court has observed that in such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the designation of a skilled workman may be given to the respondent-workman. This finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. It fails to take into consideration the statement made by Sri Saheb Saran Upadhyaya, Senior Foreman in the Central Workshop that no specific duty is assigned to the workmen working in the Workshop and invariably the same nature of the work is performed by all the workmen starting from unskilled workmen to specialist grade workmen and that the designation is given on the basis of experience and seniority provided there are vacancies. In the present case admittedly there was no vacancy on the post of skilled workmen and, therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in designating the respondent-workman as a skilled workman merely because he may have been performing the same work which was being performed by a skilled workman. The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the entire statement given by Sri Saheb Saran Upadhyaya, Senior Foreman in the Central Workshop and by merely by picking up sentence or two from his statement, has recorded a finding in favour of the workman. The Labour Court has also failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent-workman was at Sl. No. 44 in the list of seniority of semi-skilled workman. The award of the Labour Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The award of the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 68 of 1989 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.