Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant sought a Reference on 24.10.1979, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with regard to revision of pay-scale of Security Staff up to the rank of Assistant Security Inspector, in the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The Industrial Tribunal, by Award dated 22.08.1985 held that Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard in the services of the Corporation were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700/-, Rs. 260-350/- and Rs. 225-308/- respectively, with effect from 01.10.1979, at par with their counterparts in the Delhi Police Force. The Corporation challenged the Award unsuccessfully before the Single Judge. The Division Bench set aside the Award, and which is presently assailed.
3. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the Tribunal granted parity in pay-scale with the Delhi police based on consideration of material evidence inter alia with regard to similarity in nature of duties, existing parity for the post of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer with that in the Delhi Police, the next below post principle in the Corporation itself, and the pay-scale available to similarly situated security staff in the Food Corporation of India, the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., etc. In absence of any infirmity in the decision-making process by the Tribunal, the Division Bench erred in exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Award. The principles and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to matters concerning pay-scale, including equal pay for equal work, are fundamentally different from the adjudication of the same by an Industrial Tribunal under the Act. The primary purpose of industrial adjudication is to ensure social justice, secure peace and harmony between the employer and workmen and to ensure full cooperation between them. The Tribunal for the purpose can confer rights and privileges which it considers reasonable and proper and essential for keeping industrial peace.
4. It is pointed out that parity in pay-scale of the security cadre in the Corporation with that in the Delhi Police existed till 1962. Thereafter, though parity existed with the Delhi Police for the rank of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer in the Corporation, the same was denied for the post of Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar and Security Guard in the Corporation. The discrimination, for no justifiable reason was completely arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional ethos for a living wage and parity in pay-scales based on wholesome identity, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, it is argued. There was a great amount of similarity in the nature of duties of the three posts with that of the equiva........