Judgment:
Arun Kumar, C.J.
1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated December 12, 2000. The respondent is an employee of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in short 'RSEB' hereinafter). He had approached the Labour Court under Sec0tion 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. His application was decided by the Labour Court which found in favour of the employer that the workman was not entitled to grant of advance increment of Rs. 10/- on his regular appointment with effect from April 1, 1974 and, therefore, the order withdrawing the special advance increment and recovery made in pursuance thereof from the workman was upheld. The application of the workman was rejected. However, before parting with the case, the Labour Court clarified that the order would mean that the salary of the workman shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 370-10-450-12-570 with effect from April 1, 1974 and not on Rs. 380/-; but by getting regular increments from that stage when he reaches the stage of Rs. 400/-, the next increment shall be of Rs. 30/-.
2. The said order of the Labour Court was challenged by the workman as well as by the RSEB by way of two separate writ petitions. These writ petitions came to be decided by the order under reference passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petition filed by the workman was allowed while the writ petition filed by the RSEB was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The RSEB through its successor has filed both these appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge.
3. The only point which the learned counsel for the appellants argued in these appeals was that the workman could not be called an existing employee nor he could be said to be in an existing pay-scale as per the definitions of these words contained in RSEB Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978.
The relevant regulations are reproduced as under:
'5. Definitions:
In these regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:
(i) 'Existing pay Scale' means scales of pay applicable to an employee, but for the coming into force of these regulations, in respect of a post held by him on April 1, 1974, substantively or in officiating capacity while retaining lien on a permanent post, or in a temporary capacity.
(ii) 'Existing Employee' means an employee who is in service on April 1, 1974 and drawing pay in the existing pay scales'.
According to the learned counsel, the respondent neither held a post in substantive or officiating capacity nor he was in any regular pay-scale on April 1, 1974 and, therefore, he did not fall within the definition of the words 'existing pay scale' as quoted above. To appreciate this argument, a few dates are necessary. The respondent employee was appointed as a work-charged painter at the rate of Rs. 4/- per day in the office of the Executive Engineer, RSEB vide order dated November 7, 1970. There were disputes between the employer and the employees which led to an Award dated May 31, 1978 called the Singh & Sancheti Award. As per para 14 of the Award, the technical workmen engaged/recruited on work-charged/daily-rated/muster-roll/casual excluding those covered by classification of EHT Trade/Wing as referred to in the Memorandum of Settlement dated June 8, 1971 between the Board and the PVMMF, who have completed two years or more continuous service and have been continuously in the Board's service, on the completion of such service have not been fixed in the regular pay-scales shall be given regular pay scales from the dates mentioned below against each classification with due regard to the trade. The relevant entry of the table reads as under:
'Classification(period of service)
Datefrom which Regular Pay Scale to be given
iii) Those who havecompleted two years or more continuous service upto/as on March 31, 1974 andhave been continuously in Board's service thereafter.
April 1, 1974
In pursuance of the said Award vide office order dated July 25, 1980, the pay of the employee was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 370-10-450-12-570 or (Rs. 370-10-450-EB-20- 650) with effect from April 1, 1974; and, for this purpose, a supernumerary post of Painter-II was created.
4. Thus it is clear that it was in pursuance of a settlement followed by the Award that the respondent employee was granted the pay-scale of Rs. 370/- etc. with effect from April 1, 1974. With these facts in the background, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent employee did not fall within the definition of the words 'existing pay-scale' and 'existing employee'. The definition quoted above clearly shows that as on April 1, 1974 the respondent was in an 'existing pay-scale 'and if that was so, he was an 'existing employee' within the meaning of the definitions of these words as given in the Regulations. Inspite of the Award referred to above applicability whereof is not disputed, the learned counsel for the appellant wants us to ignore the same so as to persuade us to hold that on April 1, 1974 the employee was neither in any existing pay scale nor he was an 'existing employee' holding a post in substantive or officiating capacity. In our view, it is immaterial whether the respondent was given 'existing pay-scale' and post in pursuance of an Award or otherwise. The fact remains that on April 1, 1974 he was having a substantive appointment and pay-scale of an employee of the RSEB and had been in continuous service for more than two years. Thus we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. No other point was urged.
5. The result is that these appeals fail. The same are dismissed with costs.