JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. By a reference made by the Government of Bihar dated 28.4.1987, the following terms were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication :–
“(i) Whether the removal from service of Sri Dharam Patel Fitter employee No. 132605-H.M.B.P. of H.F.C. is proper and justified? If not whether they are entitled to re-instatement or/and any other relief?
(ii) Whether withdrawal of one additional annual increment given to Sri Mahabir Ram Munda and 38 others workmen (fully describe in annexure of notification) of F.F.P. of H.F.C. and deduction of pay additional annual increment from the salary by the management is proper and justified? If not whether they are entitled to get additional increment and get back the amount deducted?
(iii) Whether there has been supersession in promotion in Grade ‘D’ and Grade ‘B’ of Sri Ram Prakash Sharma and 4 others pattern makers (fully described in the annexure of notification of F.F.P. of H.F.C.? If so what relief these workmen are entitled to?
(iv) Whether Sri R.P. Singh and 14 others (fully disclosed the annexure of notification workmen of H.M.T.P. H.E.C. are entitled to get the pay scale of Asst. foreman after promotion from Grade A? If so since when?
2. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Ranchi, dated 5.12.1997 with regard to Item No. (iv) quoted above whereby the Labour Court answered the reference with regard to item No. (iv) against the workman, holding that they are not entitled to be promoted directly to the post of Assistant Foreman from the post of worker Grade ‘A’. Prayer is to quash the aforesaid findings in the award regarding Item No. (iv). Further prayer is to direct the respondents to sanction the pay scale of Assistant Foreman on and from the respective dates, on which they were redesignated and Chargeman.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the 12 workmen claimed that they were entitled to be promoted directly from Grade ‘A’ to Assistant Foreman. It is stated that the persons who were junior to the concerned workman have been promoted directly to the post of Assistant Foreman from the post of Grade ‘A’. It is further stated that the post of Chargeman is also the post of Grade ‘A’ and therefore, the workmen, under Grade ‘A’ who were redesignated as Chargeman in the same scale of pay of Rs. 210- 475/- in the year 1972 and 1976, are also entitled to be promoted to the next promotional post i.e., the post of Assistant Foreman but they have been denied of the said benefit of promotion by the Management.
4. On the other hand, the case of the Management, is that, prior to May, 1982, the scale of pay of both the Grades of workers and Chargeman was identical i.e., Rs. 644-1074/-. A workman in Grade ‘A’ after putting certain years of service used to be redesignated as Chargeman in the self-same scale of pay and the pay scale attached to the post of Chargeman was changed and upgraded to Rs. 749-1205/-with effect from 20.5.1982. After putting in certain years of service in Grade ‘A’. The workers were promoted to the post of Chargeman and the next promotional post was the post of Assistant Foreman, in the pay scale of Rs. 799-1289/-. The further case of the Management is that operation of the post of Chargeman has since been stopped and now the workers in Grade ‘A’ are promoted to the post of Master Craftsman. The scale of pay of Master Craftsman and Chargeman are identical and then next promotional post is Assistant Foreman.
Prior to 20.12.1984, the Engineers Assistant were in the scale of Rs. 644-1074/-, which was changed and upgraded to Rs. 749-1205/- and the next promotion for them also is Assistant Foreman. It is further said that the Senior Draftsman Grade I though carry the same scale as that of Grade ‘A’ worker but they are two different and distinct cadres and they were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs. 799-1289/- directly and since 1984, the next channel of promotion for Senior Draftsman Grade I was Engineer Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 749-1205/-. The next promotion is to the post of Junior Engineer. Therefore, though the scale of Assistant Engineer, Senior Draftsman, of Grade ‘A’ worker but they belong to different categories.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the learned Labour Court was not based on record and therefore, are perverse.
6. In order to test the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the impugned award in paragraph 22 of the award, the Labour Court had discussed the point no, iv, wherein the Labour Court has noticed the following facts :–
“That it was admitted that all the 12 concerned workman were of H.M.T.P. unit and that they were in Grade ‘A’ and they were redesignated as Chargeman. Further that it was also not disputed that consequent upon redesignation, they were posted in the shops and that they joined and accepted the redesignated post of Chargeman without any protest. Admittedly, Assistant Foreman was senior to Chargeman and it was not disputed that in H.F.C. promotions were made by decentralised way and H.M.T.P. was a separate unit.”
7. The learned Labour Court after considering the above facts and after considering the materials on record, came to the finding that the workmen who were promoted as Assistant Foreman from the post of Grade ‘A’, were not of the units of concerned workmen. The learned Labour Court found that none of the workers of the H.M.T.P. were directly promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman from the post of Grade ‘A’ thus there was no supersession in the case of the concerned workmen and ultimately it was held that there is neither any discrimination nor any victimization.
8. It was also held that in between Grade ‘A’ worker and Assistant Foreman, there is a post of Chargeman though the pay of Chargeman, and Grade ‘A’ workers were the same but the posts were clearly distinct. The concerned workmen desired to be promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman by jumping the post of Chargeman. The Labour Court rightly held that the concerned workmen were not entitled to be promoted directly to the of Assistant Foreman.
9. The findings of the learned Labour Court is wholly based on the materials on record and, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned award is perverse as the same is not based on record cannot be accepted. The findings of the Labour Court are findings on facts and, therefore, in my view requires no interference by this Court. Consequently I find no merit in this application and accordingly, this application is dismissed. No costs.