U.P. State Electricity Board and Another vs Hydro-Electric Employees Union and Another

S. Rajendra Babu J.-At the instance of Respondent 2, a dispute was raised as follows:

"Is not giving the designation and pay scale of APO to their labour V.K. Gupta, son of Shri Narender Bhan Gupta, according to his work, by the employers improper and illegal? If yes, then to what relief is the labour concerned entitled, from which date and with what other benefit?"

Respondent 2 contended that he had been representing the appellant Board in different cases under an authorisation in terms of Section 61 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that he had been carrying on the functions of Assistant Personnel Officer; that he had not been given the designation or the pay scale of APO; that he obtained a degree in Law and was a postgraduate in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan while in service. The appellants contended that Respondent 2 did not discharge any of the duties of Assistant Personnel Officer and he is working on the post of daily-wager in the capacity of a Clerk which is a junior post.

The Tribunal recorded its finding to the effect that the second respondent had been nominated on behalf of the Board to represent but there is no clear evidence to prove that he has cross-examined or argued in any matter. The other functions that are normally discharged by an Assistant Personnel Officer and enumerated in the award are not discharged by Respondent 2. Even so, the Tribunal strangely came to the conclusion that the interest of justice required that the pay scale of APO should be extended to Respondent 2 considering as if such post has been created from the date of the award. The reasons given are that he has necessary educational qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer and he has been preparing written statements, reply and rejoinders and has been representing U.P. Electricity Board in the cases.

We do not think it was proper for the Tribunal to have made an award as if appointing an incumbent to the post. Entitlement to a post can be determined only on the touchstone of relevant rules or on the basis that he is discharging such functions. When the findings are not clear as if the employee is functioning in the post to which claim is made, no relief could have been given. When the finding is categorical that only a small part of what the Assistant Personnel Officer could do such as preparing pleadings and his representation before the Industrial Tribunal or other authorities was only in the capacity of a Clerk doing liaison work the Tribunal was not at all justified in allowing the claim. The High Court could not have accepted this award and was not justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Board. The order made by the High Court does not deal with various aspects raised in the case but in a very summary and cryptic way disposed of the matter. Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order made by the High Court affirming the award made by the Industrial Tribunal. The appeals are allowed accordingly.