K. Sen, Ranen Roy and A. K. Nag, for theappellant in A. No.
R. Gokhale, M. C. Bhandare, for the intervener.
73 of 1968 and Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 21, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
Niren De, Attorney General and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant in C. A. No.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated February 21, 1959, of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi in C.A. No.
1777 of, 1969 .
K. Ramamurthi, E. C. Agarwala, R. P. Agarwala and M. V. Goswami, for the respondent in C. A. No.
Goburdhun, for respondent No.
In this case the petitioner chose to be a Lower Division Clerk.
A. Nc 1705 of 1969.
1777 of 1969 .
130 5 160 8 200 EB 8 280 10 300 with the usual allowances.
On November 26, 1962 the Government of India in the Ministry of Health re revised the pay scales of Store keepers to Rs.
1 in C. A. No.
On August 11, 1966 the Director General wrote With reference to your letter No.
The Management of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi was the respondent in a petition under s. 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in a petition by the present respondent Kuldip Singh Sethi, a Lower Division Clerk in the Hospital, for companyputation of the amount of salary etc.
due to him in the pay scale of store keepers.
N. Tiwari and Shiva Pujan Singh, for respondent No.
3 in A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
110 180 on July 1, 1959 in accordance with the ,recommendations of the Second Pay Commission.
1781 of 1969.
Kuldip Singh Sethi companyplained by his petition that the Management of the Hospital had failed to give him pay in this scale and claimed Rs.
1705 of 1969 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.
1777 of 1969 .
The second by the Management of Tuber culosis Hospital, New Delhi and the third by the Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna.
Two or three months later the pay was re fixed and the time scale was Rs.
In addition there were certain matters pending against him which precluded his appointment in that scale.
On July 1, 1962 his basic pay was fixed at Rs.
1705 of1969.
Kuldip Singh Sethi was appointed as a Store keeper on October 26, 1956 in the pay scale of Rs.
60 5 75.
R. Gokhale, Jitendra Mahajan, for the appellant in C.A. No.
The first is an appeal by the Management of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
1705 of 1969 .
914 for the period November 26, 1,962 to May 31, 1968.
1781 of 1969 .
1705 of 1969, 1781 of 1969 and 1777 of 1969.
K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthy and Madan Mohan, for the respondents in C. A. No.
In rely to his petition the Management companytended that Kuldip p Singh Sethi was number a workman but a Government servant governed by the Conditions of Service for Government Servants and hence he companyld number invoke the Industrial Disputes Act since the Safdarjung Hospital was number an industry.
The order was to lake effect from the date of issue.
They call in question respectively the order of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi dated 21st February, 1969 on an application under s. 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949, the order of the Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated 24th February, 1969 and the judgment and order dated 21st February, 1969 of the Patna High Court.
This scale was revised to Rs.
1781 of 1969 .
It was only after November 26, 1962 when the scale of Store keepers was raised to Rs.
dated the 4th Jan, 1966 and subsequent reminder of even number dated the 24th May, 1966 on the subject numbered above, I am directed to say that a reference was made to the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, New Delhi who have stated that it was number intended that the revised scale of Rs.
The first two are filed by special leave and the third by certificate.
There is numberevidence that it is more than a place were persons can get treated.
110 131 with usual allowances.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated February 24, 1969 of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.
130 300 that he changed his views.
His application was recommended on August 9, 1962.
On July 14, 1962 he again drew attention to his application.
1 20/62 Estt.,
2 of 1968 and Civil Appeal No.
730 of 1968.
