JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The Southern Railway Administration has filed this writ petition through its Divisional Personnel Officer challenging the legality of the order Ext. P-9, dated 31st July, 1975 passed by the Central Government Labour Court, Kerala State, allowing a claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directing that the pay of the said employee will stand fixed at Rs. 200 in the scale of Rs. 130-300 with effect from 16th August 1967. 2. The 2nd respondent was first appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Southern Railway on 16th May 1953 on a scale of Rs. 110-180. He was confirmed in that post on 31st March 1956. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was posted to work as Steno typist on a purely ad hoc basis and he functioned as such till 16th August 1967, on which date he was promoted as a Senior Clerk in his parent cadre in the scale of Rs. 130-300. While working as Steno typist the 2nd respondent was getting a special pay of Rs. 30 per mensem. On the date of his promotion as Senior Clerk he was drawing a pay of Rs. 159 plus special pay of Rs. 30. While fixing the pay of the 2nd respondent in the post of Senior Clerk, the Railway Administration ignored the special pay drawn by him as Stenographer and took into account only the pay in the substantive category as Clerk. On that basis the 2nd respondent's pay in the promoted post was fixed at Rs. 168 per mensem. In the claim petition filed before the Labour Court the 2nd respondent contended that the omission to take into account the special pay drawn by him as Stenographer was incorrect and illegal and that on his promotion as Senior Clerk he is entitled to have his initial pay in the higher scale fixed at Rs. 200. In opposition to the said claim it was submitted before the Labour Court by the Railway Administration that the fixation of pay in the higher grade is governed by the orders of the Board contained in its letter dated 21st July 1965 (Ext. 200. In opposition to the said claim it was submitted before the Labour Court by the Railway Administration that the fixation of pay in the higher grade is governed by the orders of the Board contained in its letter dated 21st July 1965 (Ext. P-8) and that since the employee in question was not holding any of the posts the special pay attached to which alone could be taken into consideration for purpose of fixation of his pay in a higher scale under the terms of the said letter, the claim put forward by the 2nd respondent was unsustainable. It was pointed out that the 2nd respondent had been posted as Steno typist only on an ad hoc basis and the category of "Steno typist" was not covered by the Board's letter aforementioned. In the objection statements, Exts. P-6 and P-7, filed by the Railway Administration before the Labour Court it was further submitted that the special pay could be taken into consideration while fixing the pay of an employee in a higher grade only where the conditions stipulated in the Board's letter were duly fulfilled and since that those conditions were not satisfied in the case of the 2nd respondent, the employee was not entitled to have the special pay taken into account while fixing his initial pay in the promoted grade. The Labour Court by its order Ext. P-9, which is now sought to be quashed, overruled the above objections put forward by the Railway Administration and allowed the claim of the 2nd respondent. 3. The principles governing the subject of fixation of pay of employees on promotion to higher posts with special reference to the question of treatment of special pay for purpose of such fixation have been laid down in the Railway Board's letter Ext. P-8 dated 21st July 1965. That letter incorporates the decision of the President on the said subject matter. As per the terms of Ext. P-8 dated 21st July 1965. That letter incorporates the decision of the President on the said subject matter. As per the terms of Ext. P-8 one of the principal conditions, subject to which alone special pay drawn in a lower post is liable to be taken into account for purpose of fixation of pay on promotion to a higher post, is that the special pay in the lower post should have been granted in lieu of a separate higher scale of pay and should have been drawn in the lower post continuously for a minimum of three years on the date of promotion. It is further stated that the crucial test for determining whether the special pay has been granted in lieu of a separate higher scale is whether the Government servant has a proprietary and inalienable right on the special pay which he is in receipt of, and that "these conditions would be satisfied only in the case of special pays listed below: "(i) Deputy Director, Railway Board promoted from the Railway Board Secretariat Service. (ii) Steno typists and Hindi/English Typists utilised as Stenographers in cases where full time stenographers are not justified. (iii) Wireless operators. (iv) Shop Superintendent". Paragraph 4 of Ext. P-8 enumerates the types of special pay which will not be taken into account for purposes of fixation of pay on promotion. Clause.3 and 4 in that paragraph alone are relevant for our present purpose and they read as under: "(iii) Deputation (duty) allowance or special pay drawn in lieu thereof. (iv) Special pay granted for specific addition to duty or for arduous nature of duties", 4. The 2nd respondent before me had been functioning as a Stenographer only on a purely ad hoc basis. He had been offered a chance of getting substantively absorbed in the category of Stenographer in case he was prepared to opt for such a change. It is seen from the paper, Ext. P-4 produced before me, that the 2nd respondent had specifically declined to exercise such option and preferred to keep his substantive position as Junior Clerk with the result that he was allowed to continue as Stenographer only as an ad hoc arrangement. Such being the position, it cannot be said that he had acquired any "proprietary or inalienable right on the special pay". Such being the position, it cannot be said that he had acquired any "proprietary or inalienable right on the special pay". Nor does his case fall specifically under any one of the categories described in Clause.1 to 3 of Para.1 of Ext. P-8. It was because the second respondent was holding the substantive rank of Junior Clerk that he was able to earn his promotion to the next higher category of Senior Clerk. On such promotion, as per the principles enunciated in Ext. P-8, only the pay drawn by him in the post of Junior Clerk as at the time of his promotion would be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of his initial pay in the higher grade admissible to Senior Clerk. Instead of going by the rules governing the matter the Labour Court has based its conclusions on vague generalisations and certain theories evolved by itself, for which there is absolutely no legal basis. For example, the Labour Court says: " When a person opts for another cadre he naturally expects some additional benefits accruing to him from the option. It may reasonably be conjunctured that the petitioner opted for the post of steno typist on account of the special pay attached to it. This advantage he expected to continue when he would get a promotion to a higher grade in the same post or in a different post. Thus the petitioner must be deemed to have acquired a permanent right to the special pay attached to the post for which he had opted. The contention of the Railway administration that the petitioner was appointed as steno typist on an ad hoc basis cannot be accepted. No doubt, his initial appointment was on an ad hoc basis, but once he was declared eligible for the post in the departmental test the ad hoc character of post must be deemed to have come to an end and he acquired a permanent right to the post including the special pay attached to it. The Railway Administration was therefore not competent to change the nature of the post by treating it as ex cadre or calling it by any other name. The right to get the pay fixed at a particular stage is, of course, not a common law right, but one created by statutory rules. The Railway Administration was therefore not competent to change the nature of the post by treating it as ex cadre or calling it by any other name. The right to get the pay fixed at a particular stage is, of course, not a common law right, but one created by statutory rules. But the rules of pay fixation should be interpreted in a reasonable way and not arbitrarily or capriciously. In interpreting the rule of pay fixation, if any doubt arises, it is the cardinal rule of interpretation, that such doubt should be resolved in favour of the employee. So also when two or more interpretations to a rule or direction are possible the one that is most advantageous to the employee should be adopted." Enumerating the categories of posts the special pay attached to which alone is liable to be taken into account for pay fixation in a higher grade, the Labour Court has proceeded to observe. " This classification appears arbitrary and no reason has been assigned for selecting them alone as persons holding 'proprietary and inalienable rights on the special pay'. In my view the petitioner has fulfilled this condition also. He was also performing the duties of a stenographer and as such there was no reason why he should be excluded from getting the benefit of the special pay in fixing his pay in the higher scale. Where a person is promoted to a higher scale he is expected to get by way of emoluments something more than what he was getting before. In other words, his emoluments should in no case be lower than what he was getting before the promotion. In the case of the petitioner he was drawing Rs. 159 plus 30 = Rs. 189 as steno typist but when he was promoted his pay was fixed at Rs. 168 i.e., Rs. 21 less. This is clearly unjust and no rule can be allowed to stand in the way of supporting such a clear injustice. In the case of the petitioner he was drawing Rs. 159 plus 30 = Rs. 189 as steno typist but when he was promoted his pay was fixed at Rs. 168 i.e., Rs. 21 less. This is clearly unjust and no rule can be allowed to stand in the way of supporting such a clear injustice. Therefore, considering all the aspects of the case, I am of the view that the special pay drawn by the petitioner should be taken into account in fixing his pay in the higher scale." I am constrained to observe that the approach made to the case by the Labour Court is wholly erroneous and the observations made by it are based on a total misconception of the nature of the function that it was called upon to discharge in deciding an application presented before him under S.33C(2) of the Act. The proceeding under S.33C(2) is, generally speaking, only in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the function of the Labour Court is to calculate the amount of money due to a workman from his employer and the money value of any benefit due to the workman where the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court has merely to compute the money equivalent of such benefit. The Labour Court cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and embark upon an elaborate enquiry as to what should be the terms and conditions applicable to the employee as an Industrial Tribunal. Moreover, when the terms and conditions of service of an employee are governed by the rules, it is not open to the Labour Court in such a proceeding to deviate from the rules on considerations of what appears to be just, proper or fair. Much less is it open to the Labour Court to arrogate to itself the function of deciding upon the validity, constitutionality or otherwise of a service rule applicable to the employee while dealing with a proceeding initiated under S.33C(2). In the present case it is manifest that the case of the 2nd respondent does not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Clause.1 to 4 of Para.1 of Ext. P-8. In the present case it is manifest that the case of the 2nd respondent does not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Clause.1 to 4 of Para.1 of Ext. P-8. The fact that the 2nd respondent had passed the Stenographer's test as well as the departmental test during the period while he was working as Stenographer on an ad hoc basis does not at all warrant an inference that he had acquired any substantive right to the post of Stenographer or to a special pay attached to that post. An option was extended to him by the Department to go over substantively to the category of steno typist by exercising an option in writing. But that was specifically declined by the 2nd respondent, because he wanted to retain his substantive position as a Junior Clerk. Such being the position, the Labour Court was patently in error in holding that because the 2nd respondent had passed the test and had continued to work as Stenographer, the initial ad hoc character of his appointment must be deemed to have come to an end and the 2nd respondent should have been deemed to have acquired a permanent right to the post of Stenographer. It is on this erroneous basis that the Labour Court has proceeded to hold that the 2nd respondent satisfied the conditions stipulated in Ext. P-8 for eligibility to have his special pay counted for the purpose of fixation of pay in the higher post. The Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in making the observation that the classification of posts contained in Clause.1 to 4 of Para.1 of Ext. P-8 is arbitrary and unreasonable. The function of the Labour Court was only to apply the rules as they stood and determine whether under those rules the claim put forward before it by the employee was legally sustainable. There is also no invariable principle that whenever an employee is promoted from a lower post to a higher post, his initial pay in the higher post should be fixed at a figure higher than what the employee was actually drawing by way of aggregate emoluments while functioning in the lower post, at the time of his promotion. There is also no invariable principle that whenever an employee is promoted from a lower post to a higher post, his initial pay in the higher post should be fixed at a figure higher than what the employee was actually drawing by way of aggregate emoluments while functioning in the lower post, at the time of his promotion. There may be many instances in which certain types of special pay or allowances drawn by such an employee may not be liable to be taken into account for fixation of the initial pay in the higher grade. Inasmuch as it is clear that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions stipulated in Ext. P-8 for eligibility for the counting of special pay drawn in the lower post for the purpose of fixation of initial pay in the higher grade, the labour court was not justified in allowing the claim put forward by him. The order of the Labour Court will accordingly stand quashed. The Original Petition is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.