P.K. SINGH AND OTHERSversusPRESIDING OFFICER & OTHERS

                   P.K. SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                                            A
                              v.
                PRESIDING OFFICER & OTHERS

                            JULY 15, 1988

        [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OIBA, JJ.)                             B

     Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: ss. 10(1) and 33C(2)-Work-
men-'C' Grade Fitters doing work of 'B' Grade Fitters-Claim for
higher wages-Admissibility of-Not entitled to relief unless duly pro-
moted or reclassified.

       The appellant engaged as 'C' Grade Fitters in a Central Govern-      c
ment Undertaking filed applications nuder s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial
DisJilutes Act, I947 for computation of wages payable to them for cer-
tain periods. Their case before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was that since they were doing the same
duties which were performed by a 'B' Grade Fitter, they were entitled       D
to claim wages payable to 'B' Grade Fitters. Tbe Management con-
tended that since the principal question involved in all the applications
related to re-classification of the workmen concerned, a relief which
could not be claimed under s. 33-C(2) of the Act, these were not main-
tainable. The Tribunal rejected the applications by a common order.
                                                                            E
      In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the workmen
that they should be classified as 'B' Grade Fitters even though they had
been appointed as 'C' Grade Fitters because they had been performing
the duties which were similar to the duties of 'B' Grade Fitters.

      Dismissing the appeal,                                                F

      HELD: I. I A workman cannot put forward a claim in an applica-
tion filed under s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I947 in
respect of the relief which is not based on an existing right and which
can be appropriately the subject-matter of an industrial dispute requir-
ing a reference nnders. IO of the Act. [47SC-D)                             G

      1.2 By merely doing the same kind of work which is done by a
senior grade workman, a junior grade workman will not be entitled to
claim the wages of senior grade unless he is duly promoted. Such a
workman cannot complain that he is not being paid the salary and
allowances due to a senior grade workman, since he does not possess an      H
                                   471
    472         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   existing right to daim it. If on an adjudication made on the said ques-
    Hort on a reference made under s. 10(1) of the Act, it is held that he
    should be deemed to be a member of the senior cadre, then only he
    would b-e able to claim the salary and allowances payable to senior
    grade workmen. [474G-H; 475A-Bl

          Central Bank of India Lt& V• p,,s, Rajagopalan etc.; !19641 3
    S.C.R. i40; State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v; Khandelwal (R.L.);
    [1968] I LL.J. 589 and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v; Gopal
    Sahal Pareek, [i968] 1 L.L.J. 593, referred to.

         R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Nagpur
    & 'Ors,, [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580 and V.M. Vankar (Macwana) v. Indian
c   Fa'rniets Fertilizer, [1984] Lab. J.C. 1342, distinguished.

          1.3 In the instant case, the appellants had been employed as 'C'
    Grade Fitters and in order to get the salary and allowances p.iyable to
    'B' Grade Fitters they had to be promJted to the cadre of 'B' Grade
D   Fitters on their passing certain trade tests. They had not been so promo-
    ted. The claim of the appellants, therefore, is not tenable. [473D-E]

          2. it is open to the workmen, if tliey are so advised; to seek a
    reference of the questii>n whether they are entiiled lo be treated as 'B;
    Grad~ Fitters under s. IO of the Act. [476E]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
    2640{L) of 1980

         From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1978 of the Central
    Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court New Delhi in L.C.A.
F   Nos. 389, 391-393; 395-406 of 1978.

          Mrs. Utmila Kapur Advocate. for the Appellants.

        V.C. Mahajan, Miss A. Subhashini, R.P. Srivastava and C.V.
    Suooa Rao felt ihe Respondents.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal oy special leave is filed by
    16 workineti of the Sinall Arins Fatioty, kanpuf against the common
    Order daie<l i4th Fehruaty; i979 passed liy iiie Cenifal Govemirieni
H   industrial Trib!mal-cum'Labdtir Courl, Aliptir Rdad, Dellii iii appi.ica'
      P.K. SINGH v. PRESIDING OFFICER [VENKATARAMIAH-, J.]          473

tions bearing LC.A. Nos. 389, 391 to 393 and 395 to 406 of 1978
                                                                           A
filed under section 33-C(2) of. the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafte1 referred to as 'the Act') rejecting their claims.

      The appellants filed the applications under section 33-C(2) of the
Act for computation of the wages payable to them for certain periods
as detailed in the respective petitions. Their case was that even though   B
they had been engaged as 'C' Grade Fitters, they were entitled to the
salary and allowances payable to 'B' Grade Fitters, since they were
doing the same duties as 'B' Grade Fitters. The Management con-
tested the applications filed by the appellants stating that they were
not maintainable since the principal question involved in all the appli"
cations related to the re-classification of the workmen concerned and
that such a relief could not be claimed under section 33-C(2) of the
                                                                           c
Act. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
upheld the objection of the Management and rejected the applications
by its common Order dated 14th February; 1979. A)igrieVed by the
said common Order the appellants fiied this appeal by speciai leave.

      It is not disputed that the appellants had been employed as 'C'
Grade Fitters and in order to get the salary and allowances payabie to
'B' Grade Fitters they had to be promoted to the cadre of 'B' Grade.
Fitters on their passing certain trade tests. Admittedly, the appellants
had not been so promoted. But, their case before the Central Govern-
ment Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was that since they were E:
doing the same duties which are performed by a 'B' Grade Fitter, they
were entitled to daim the wages payable to 'B' Grade Fitters under
secilon 33-C(2) Of the Act. Seciion .3J-C(2) of the Act reads thus:

           "33-C(2). Where any workman is entitled to receive from
           the employer any money or any benefit which is capable Of       F
           being computed in terms of money and if any question arises
           as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which
           such benefit should be computed, then the question may.
           subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be
           decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this
           behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not        G
           exceeding three months.

                 Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour
           Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do he may,
           for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period by
           such further period as he may think fit."                       H
    474        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [19881 Supp. 1 S.C.R.

          The above provision came up for consideration before this Court
A
    in the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., [19641 3
    S.C.R. 140. At pages 150-151 of the said Report this Court observed
    thus:

                     "The Legislative history to which we have just refer-
B              red clearly indicates that having provided broadly for the
               investigation and settlement of industrial disputes on the
               basis of collective bargaining, the legislature recognised
               that individual workmen should be given a speedy remedy
               to enforce their existing individual rights, and so, inserted
               s. 33-A in the Act in 1950 and added s. 33-C in 1956. These
               two provisions illustrate the cases in whic'i individual work-
c              men can enforce their rights without having to take
               recourse to s. 10(1) of the Act, or without having to depend
               upon their Union to espouse their cause. Therefore, in
               construing s. 33-C we have to bear in mind two relevant
               considerations. The construction should not be so broad as
D              to bring within the scope of s. 33-C cases which would fall
               under s. 10(1). Where industrial disputes arise between
               employees acting collectively 'and their employers, they
               must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the
               Act, as for instance, by reference under s. 10(1). These
               disputes cannot be brought within the purview of s. 33-C.
E              Similarly, having regard to the fact that the policy of the
               Legislature in enacting s. 33-C is to provide a speedy re-
               medy to the individual workmen to enforce or execute their
               existing rights, it would not be reasonable to exclude from
               the scope of this section cases of existing rights which are
               sought to be implemented by individual workmen. In other
F              words, though in determining the scope of s. 33-C we must
               take care not to exclude cases which legitimately fall within
               its purview, we must also bear in mind that cases which fall
               under s. 10(1) of the Act for instance, cannot be brought
               within the scope of s. 33-C."

G       It is obvious from the facts narrated above, which are not in
  dispute, that by merely doing the same kind of work which is done by a
  'B'. Grade Fitter, a workman appointed as a 'C' Grade Fitter will not
  be entitled to claim the wages of a 'B' Grade Fitter unless he is duly
  promoted after getting through the prescribed trade tests. Such a
  workman cannot complain that he is not being paid the salary and
H allowances due to a 'B' Grade Fitter, since he does not possess an
      P.K. SINGH v. PRESIDING OFFICER {VENKATARAMIAH, J.]           475

existing right to claim it. If on an adjudication made on the said ques-   A
tion on a reference made under section 10(1) of the Act, it is held that
he should be deemed to be a member of the cadre of 'B' Grade Fitters,
then only he would be able to claim the salary and allowances payable
to 'B' Grade Fitters. The case before us is analogous to the claim made
by a Junior Clerk, who can become a Senior Clerk only on promotion,
to the salary attached to the post of Senior Clerk on the ground that      8
both the Junior Clerk and the Senior Clerk are engaged in clerical work.

      The learned counsel for the appellants, however, relied upon
two other decisions of this Court-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v.
Khandelwal (R.L.), 11968] 1 L.L.J. 589 and State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur v. Copa! Saha! Pareek, 11968] 1 L.L.J. 593 which were decided C
on the same day. On going through those two decisions we feel that
they are of no assistance to the appellants. In the said cases this Court
clearly laid down that a workman could not put forward a claim in an
application filed under section 33-C(2) of the Act in respect of a relief
which was not based on an existing right and which could be
appropriately the subject-matter of an industrial dispute requiring a D
reference under section 10 of the Act.

      The decision of this Court in R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Labour Court, Nagpur & Ors., 11972] 2 S.C.R. 580 is clearly
distinguishable from the present case. In the said case the only dispute
was whether workmen were not entitled to lay-off compensation. The E
Management in that case contended that the business had been closed
and the workmen were not entitled lay-off compensation. This Court
held that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that
the business of. the company was continuing and that the Labour
Court's jurisdiction could not be ousted by a mere plea denying the
workmen's claim to the computation of benefit in terms of money. It F
was also held that the Labour Court in the circumstances had to go into
the matter and come to a decision as to whether there was really a
closure or a lay-off. If in the present case the claim of the appellants
was that they had been actually promoted to 'B' Grade Fitters cadre
and that the Management had denied that there was such promotion,
the Labour Court would have been under an obligation to determine G
whether there was such a promotion or not. But the case of the work-
men before us is that they should be classified as '8' Grade Fitters
even though they had been appointed as 'C' Grade Fitters merely
because they had been performing the duties which were similar to the
duties of 'B' Grade Fitters.
                                                                          H
    476        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A        The decision of the Gujarat High Court rendered by Thakkar,
  C.J. (as he then was) in V.M. Vankar (Macwana) v. Indian Farmers
  Fertiliser, [1984] Lab. l.C. 1342 is again of no assistance to the appel-
  lants. In that case there was a settlement arrived at between the ·
  Management and the workmen and under the said settlement persons
  working as Conveyor Attendants, Bag Stitchers, Bag Fillers and
B
  Pointsmen were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.225-9-333. The comp-
  laint of the workman concerned was that even though he was perform-
  ing the duties of persons in the above category, he was being paid as
  per the pay-scale of workmen in a lower category, i.e., the pay-scale of
  Rs.210-8-314. In that case the High Court rightly came to the conclu-
  sion that the Labour Court was required to decide whether the work-
c man concerned was doing the work of an employee who was in the
  category which carried a higher pay-scale or was doing the work of an
  employee in a category which carried a lower pay-scale for the purpose
  of granting relief to the workman. The question of promotion from a
  lower post to a higher post or of the passing of a trade test for the
D purpose of securing such promotion was not involved in that case.

          In any view of the matter we feel that there is no ground to set
    aside the Order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
    Labour Court against which this appeal is filed. The appeal fails and it
    is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

          It is open to the workmen, if they are so advised, to seek a
    reference of the question whether they are entitled to be treated as 'B'
    Grade Fitters under section 10 of the Act and if such a reference is
    Sought we hope that the appropriate Government would decide
    expeditiously the question whether a reference should be made
F   accordingly or not. If a reference is made, the Tribunal or the Court to
    Which the reference is made shall dispose of the case as early as
    possible.

    P.S.S.                                               Appeal dismissed.