Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJVEER SINGH versus M/S K.S.C.M.S.A.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajveer Singh v. M/S K.S.C.M.S.A.& Others - WRIT - C No. 20971 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 6010 (3 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Judgement Reserved on 28.2.2007

Judgement Delivered on 3.4.2007

(Reserved)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20971 of 1987

Rajvir Singh Versus M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Shakha Aligarh and others

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On the date on which arguments were heard and judgement was reserved learned counsel for both the parties stated that the petitioner employee had retired on 31.1.2007.

This writ petition is directed against award dated 30.4.1987 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court, Agra in Adjudication case No. 57 of 1986. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether the employer respondent No. 1 should give the designation and pay scale of Diesel Generator Mechanic to its employee Rajvir Singh petitioner with effect from 1.7.1989. The reference was answered in the negative hence workman has challenged the same through this writ petition.

The case of the workman was that on 4.2.1977, he was appointed on the post of Diesel Generator Operator however later on he was promoted to the post of Diesel Generator Fitter Grade I-Cum-Diesel Generator Operator and that he was actually working on the post of Diesel Generator Mechanic  with effect from 1.7.1979. The workman prayed that on the basis of the recommendations of the Second Sugar Wage Board he must be given designation and pay scale of Diesel Generator Mechanic highly skilled grade. The employers stated before the Labour court that there was no post of mechanic in their Engineering Department. There was no dispute that the workman petitioner was employed in the Engineering Department.

Report of the second wage board for sugar Industries was supplied to the court on the date of argument. In the said report Item No. 33 under Administrative and General Department relates to Mechanic. The qualification and duties against the said entry are mentioned as "should be able to undertake independently complete overhaul & repair of motor cars, jeeps, trucks, tractors and to adjust & check valve and timings and to maintain & repair internal combustion engines, diesel locos, trailors and to do works incidental thereto." For Mechanic I (Highly Skilled). The previous designation mentioned therein as Mechanic. Under clause 33 (b) a new post was created of Mechanic II (Skilled A) qualifications and duties are mentioned as should be able to do repairs, overhauling maintenance of motor cars, jeeps, trucks & tractors and to do works incidental thereto.

Under the category of mechanic II the petitioner does not fall as he does not deal with motor cars, jeep, truck and tractors. Under the category of mechanic I also petitioner does not fall for the simple reason that several duties are mentioned therein. The argument that the generator used for supplying electricity in the factory contains internal combustion engine hence petitioner must be held entitled to the said designation is misconceived. Possession of only one of the several qualifications and duties mentioned under the said head can not warrant granting the said designation. Moreover, it is mentioned under note to clause 5 of the aforesaid wage board recommendations that duties prescribed for different categories of employees as shown in annexures are only the principal duties and are not exhaustive. Person appointed to operate a generator for supplying electricity even if he is competent to repair the same in case it develops some defect can not fall under the category of Mechanic I (Supra). In the aforesaid report under the heading of Engineering Department two posts are mentioned at serial No. 8 and 16 being Head Fitter (Highly Skilled) and other is Fitter I (Skilled A). For the post of fitter qualification and duty are prescribed as "must be able to perform in a thoroughly skilled & expeditious manner the fitting, overhauling & erecting of any primemover & mechanism normally in use in his branch. Under item number 8 Head Fitter (Highly skilled) it is mentioned that in addition to the duties of Fitter I the workman concerned must be capable of supervising the work of fitters and also undertaking skilled job of Fitter. I agree with the argument of learned counsel for the employer respondent No.1 that the job of the petitioner did not fall under any of the above two items (i.e Fitter I (Skilled A) or Head Fitter (Highly Skilled).

Accordingly I do not finding any error in the impugned award. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Waqar

3.4.2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.