Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 730 (AP)

S. Srinivas v. Labour Court-I, Hyderabad

2000-09-21

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2000
B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was appointed as telephone Attender in the office of the third respondent filed an application before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act ) claiming difference in salary from 1-5-1983 to 30-6-1987 stating that though he was appointed as Telephone Attender, the third respondent was utilising his services as filter Operator without paying the salary attached to the said post. The Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that at no point of time the petitioner made any representation seeking enhanced salary. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed. ( 2 ) THE Counsel for the respondents tried to justify the order passed by the Labour court, which according to me, has no legs to stand. ( 3 ) THE first ground of rejection taken by the Labour Court is that the application was filed in the year 1993 though the petitioner ceased to be Filter Operator six years back. The Labour Court gravely erred in coming to the said conclusion by taking the number of the case after it was transferred to its file. Initially, the case was taken up by the additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional labour Court in the year 1987 as m. P. No. 337 of 1987 and the Tribunal recorded the evidence on both sides way back in 1988 and it is not known why this application was kept pending thereafter. But the case seemed to have been transferred to the file of the Labour Court-I, hyderabad in 1993 and it was renumbered as M. P. No. 56 of 1993. But, unfortunately, without looking into the record, the Labour Court jumped at the conclusion that the case was filed in the year 1993, which is incorrect as per the record. In fact, the moment the petitioner was reverted as Telephone Attender, he filed the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Hence, the first ground for rejection of the claim falls to ground. The second ground of rejection is that the petitioner did not file any application before the respondents claiming higher salary till 1993 from 1-5-1983 to 30-6-1987. In fact, the moment the petitioner was reverted as Telephone Attender, he filed the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Hence, the first ground for rejection of the claim falls to ground. The second ground of rejection is that the petitioner did not file any application before the respondents claiming higher salary till 1993 from 1-5-1983 to 30-6-1987. Because of the erroneous conclusion the labour Court arrived at with regard to the filing of the claim petition, to my mind, the learned Judge recorded the finding on the second issue. From the facts of the case, it is seen that though the petitioner was appointed as Telephone Attender on 1-5-1983, as per the certificates issued by the third respondent, which were marked as exs. W. W. 1 and W. W. 2, the petitioner was working as Filter Operator. The petitioner might have come to know that the respondents are indulging in unfair labour practice in not paying the salary attached to the post in which he is working and might have made an oral request to the authorities concerned and immediately he was reverted back to the post of Telephone attender on 30-6-1987. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court. ( 4 ) THE matter can be viewed from another angle also. Having got appointment in a Government Department, which is an impossibility in the present day circumstances, if the petitioner starts claiming enhanced salary he would have been kicked out of the service without any hesitation. In fact, the same stand was taken by the respondents while cross-examining the petitioner. It will be useful to extract the cross-examination of the petitioner by the management. "it is not true to say that I was not at all appointed by the respondents. It is not true to say that I was never used as a Filter Operator. " ( 5 ) FROM this it is evident that the respondents are denying the very factum of the petitioner s appointment as Telephone attender. Nowadays the Government officers are prepared to go to any extent without respect of law to deny the legitimate rights of the subordinate officials and this is one of that cases. " ( 5 ) FROM this it is evident that the respondents are denying the very factum of the petitioner s appointment as Telephone attender. Nowadays the Government officers are prepared to go to any extent without respect of law to deny the legitimate rights of the subordinate officials and this is one of that cases. ( 6 ) NOW, coming to the certificates issued by the third respondent i. e. , W. W. 1 and w. W. 2 wherein the third respondent categorically stated that the petitioner was working as Filter Operator, the stand taken by the respondent is that they are only character certificates to enable the petitioner to try for better employment outside India. In fact, M. W. 1, Assistant Executive engineer, who was examined on behalf of the respondents has gone to the extent of denying his signature on the certificates in the chief examination. But, in the cross-examination, he was forced to admit his signature. Now their case is that the certificates were issued to the petitioner as character certificates to try for better employment opportunities. On that ground the respondents cannot deny the claim of the petitioner. At the same time, the respondents admit that there is a filter at shaikpet and it is not their case that any other employee is working as Filter operator, which is an essential post for operating the filter. If the case of the respondents is that the third respondent has issued the certificates only as character certificates, it is always open to the higher authorities to collect the difference of amount claimed by the petitioner from that officer (third respondent), who has no business to issue such certificates. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the Labour Court gravely erred in dismissing the application and in fact the order was passed without application of mind by a senior judicial officer of the rank of District Judge. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the claim petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to claim the salary attached to the post of Filter operator from 1-5-1983 to 30-6-1987 and the respondents are directed to pay the difference in pay after deducting the amount paid to the petitioner during that period, within a period ot eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.