Sri Tapen Sen, J.:— This writ petition is directed against the award, dated 14 March 2002, passed by the 9th Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur in Reference Case No. X-418/2000 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to answer the reference in favour of the concerned workman by observing that the said concerned workman namely, the respondent No. 3 would be entitled to increment at the rate of Rs. 32 in the senior operative grade while under the training period together with all arrears till date. The case of the union which espoused the cause of the respondent No. 3, was that prior, to joining as a senior operative trainee (hereinafter referred to as SOT, he was in the SK II Grade with basic pay at Rs. 710 and annual increment at of Rs. 20. It was the case of thermion that during the training period, the petitioner was kept in the scale of SK II Grade with the same annual increment while some of batch mates, were given basic pay and increment in the scale of Operative Grade III from the very date of their joining as SOT, irrespective of their Grade and basic pay.
2. As a consequence of this discrimination, the batch mates of the petitioner received more pay/higher pay than the petitioner and the petitioner was given the said higher scale only on and from the date of completion of his training. Objections were raised but since no action was taken, the dispute was raised.
3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner management filed their written statement and submitted, inter alia, that the petitioner had appeared for a selection test for the post of SOT as a departmental candidate and having qualified, he was offered the post of a senior operative trainee in the pay scale of Rs. 690–32–914–34–1152 vide letter, dated 2 May 1984. He Joined the post on 9 May 1984. The terms of appointment was quoted in the written statement and it reads thus:
“During the period of training you will receive a basic pay of Rs. 690 per month in the scale of Rs. 690–1152 attached to the post of operative grade III and other allowances. In case you present basic pay is higher than the minimum of the grade attached to operative grade III, i.e, Rs. 690, the balance will be treated as personal pay to be absorbed in any future rise in pay or Increments to be earned on confirmation.
(b) In either case during the period of training you will not earn any increment.”
(emphasis supplied.)
4. Upon a perusal of the aforementioned facts, gathered so far, it is thus evident that prior to being offered the job and/or post of a senior operative trainee, the respondent No. 3 was in SK II grade drawing the scale of Rs. 610–20–750–22–904 with effect from 19 October 1983. In other words, Just prior to being offered the aforementioned status of SOT, his annual Increment was fixed at Rs. 20.
5. In the year 1989, the petitioner-company came out with a Circular which is contained in Annexure P2 and the same is dated 5 July 1989. The Said circular clearly lays down as follows:
“The pay of departmental SOT/JOTs will be fixed as below with effect from 8 December 1988 which is in accordance with the revised rules as received from the Additional Director (Pers., SAIL, vide his letter No. PER/RR/4027, dated 8 December 1988.
(a) Emoluments (Pay + D.A) drawn prior to appointment as SOT/JOT are to be protected during the training period.
The quarterly revision of D.A and increment in the lower grade are also to be allowed.
(b) However, on successful completion of training and placement in regular scale, their pay will be fixed in the grade after extending normal promotional benefit.
2. The pay of the candidates who joined prior to 8 December 1988 will be fixed notionally allowing financial benefit with effect from 8 December 1988.”
(emphasis supplied.)
6. Upon a perusal of the aforementioned circular, it is evident that the emoluments drawn prior to appointment as SOT/JOT were to be protected during the training period.
7. Upon a plain reading of the aforementioned terms and conditions of the aforesaid circular read with the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment quoted above, it is clear that the pay being drawn prior to appointment as SOT was to be protected during the training period and that, during the period of training, the trainee was not entitled to earn any increment. Thus, the claim of the respondent No. 3 that the moment he joined as on SOT on 9 May 1984 and the moment his training started from that day lasting till 9 November 1985, he should be paid increment at of Rs. 32, is therefore, hopelessly misconceived, this aspect was pleaded by the petitioner in the written statement but it is apparent that the learned Tribunal did not even touch the issue.
8. That apart, it is further evident upon perusal of the facts as well as upon a perusal of the circular of 1989 read with the offer of appointment itself, that the cause of action, if any, arose either in the year 1984 (when the offer of appointment was given) or when the concerned workman was not paid the annual increment of Rs. 32 during his training period which came to an end on 9 November 1985 or, when the Circular of 5 July 1989 was circulated. From the own showing of the respondent No. 3, as is evident from the supplementary affidavit filed by him as well as upon a perusal of the depositions appended thereto, it is clear that in the cross-examination, the respondent No. 3 has himself admitted that he raised the dispute in the year 1995. Thus, for a cause of action that took place either in the years 1984, or 1985 or 1989, the dispute was raised in the year 1995. Obviously, therefore, the dispute was hopelessly belated. In a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Haryana State-Co-op. Land Development Bank v. Neelam reported in [2005 (2) L.L.N 653], it has been held in Paras. 13 and 20 therein that a state claim should not be entertained while making a reference. From a perusal of the written statement which has been brought on record in the affidavit-in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, it is evident that the very first point that the petitioner had raised before the Industrial Tribunal was that the dispute was grossly time barred.
9. Let it be recorded that on the earlier occasion, a point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Tribunal had proceeded to give an award on the basis of no evidence and therefore, this Court had called for the records from the Tribunal by a special messenger, as will be evident from the order-sheet, dated 2 November 2006 itself. The records have been received and upon a perusal of the record, it is noticed that even in their written notes of argument, the petitioner had reiterated that the alleged industrial dispute arose in 1984 but the same was raised in 1996, i.e, after a lapse of about 12 years which was grossly time barred. This crucial point, therefore, was required to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal but, upon a perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the Tribunal has not even touched the same.
10. In any event, in terms of the offer of appointment, the petitioner was not entitled to the increment of Rs. 32 during the course of his training. These aspects, having not been considered by the Tribunal and the dispute having been raised after a huge delay for more than 12 years, the Tribunal should not have entered into the merits of the dispute in the manner as has been done nor should he have proceeded to enlarge the scope of reference by straightway proceeding to deal with the case of the batch mates of the petitioner without bothering to look into the offer of appointment read with the circular of 1989. Moreover, the reference was only to the extent as to whether the denial of increment to the respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 32 while undergoing training as SOT was justified or not? The reference was not as to whether there was discrimination vis-avis the respondent No. 3 and Sri S.N Sarkar and Sri Amal Kumar Chatterjee?
11. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the impugned award suffers from a total non-application of mind.
12. Since it has been held that the reference was itself grossly time barred, this Court therefore, does not consider it appropriate to remand the matter for a fresh consideration.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside.
14. In the facts and circumstances however, there will be no order as to costs.
15. The records received from the Tribunal be returned and sent down forthwith.
16. If urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for by the parties, the same should be given expeditiously.
Petition allowed.