Punjab-Haryana High Court
Market Committee vs The Presiding Officer And Another on 19 September, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 16095 of 1991
DATE OF DECISION: September 19, 2011
Market Committee, Sonepat & another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The Presiding Officer and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The Market Committee, Sonepat, has filed this writ petition to impugn the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak.
Respondent- Mohinder Singh had filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') for determining the amount due to him from the Management on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The respondent- workman, who was appointed as a Tractor Cleaner by the Executive- cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Sonepat, w.e.f. 1.4.1984, was made to do the duties of Tractor Driver instead of Tractor Cleaner. As per the averment made in the petition, the respondent-workman Civil Writ Petition No. 16095 of 1991 -2- had performed duties from 2.4.1984 to 10.10.1988 as a Tractor Driver and accordingly, made a claim for recovery of a sum of `22980.80 paise, which is a difference of wages actually paid to him and to which he was entitled to on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Mr. Goel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petition under Section 33-C(2) was not maintainable. In addition, the counsel also submits that the Secretary, Market Committee was not competent to give appointment to the respondent-workman as a Driver. This appointment could be done by the Chief Administrator, Market Committee.
The respondent-workman is not seeking appointment as a Tractor Driver, but has claimed the difference of wages on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The claim of the respondent- workman was supported by none other than the management witness i.e. Partap Singh, Secretary of the Market Committee. The said witness had stated that ever since the date of the appointment, the respondent-workman was made to work as a Tractor Driver with Market Committee since there was no Tractor Driver available. The respondent-workman was also having a Tractor Driver licence and he used to drive the tractor efficiently. The witness also deposed that he was being paid wages of a Tractor Cleaner and was not paid wages of Tractor Driver. Keeping in view this evidence, the Labour Court held the respondent-workman entitled to the difference of wages as payable to him.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Secretary, Civil Writ Petition No. 16095 of 1991 -3- Market Committee was the one, who had appointed the respondent-workman, thus, his evidence would be an evidence of the interested witness. There is nothing on record which would indicate that if any action was taken against him, for favouring the workman. There is no allegation that the statement made by the witness is false or untrue. The fact remains that as per the record, the respondent- workman had worked as a Tractor Driver and has, thus, established his claim on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
In this view of the factual position, no case for interference in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
September 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16344 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: September 19, 2011 Jagdish Chander .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
No one appears for the petitioner when the case is called.
Mr. Nehra appearing for the State has drawn my attention to the relief claimed in the writ petition. The petitioner prays for direction for quashing the order dated 16.10.1991 vide which the period from 21.3.1972 to 4.2.1975 rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis has been ignored towards the seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 21.3.1972. The petitioner otherwise has been given benefit of the Military service from the date of regularization i.e. 5.2.1975. Primarily, thus, the petitioner is seeking a claim for grant of seniority by counting his service rendered on ad hoc basis. Civil Writ Petition No.16344 of 1991 -2-
Mr. Nehra has referred to Gopi Chand Sedha Vs. The State of Haryana and others (Regular Second Appeal No.4238 of 2006), decided on 22.1.2010, where this Court discussing various judgments has held that ad hoc or fortuitous appointments on a temporary or stop-gap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority. In addition, Mr. Nehra has also invited my attention to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Homeopathy Vs. Bipin Chandra Lakhera & others, 2011(3) SCT 145, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ad hoc service rendered before the regularization cannot be counted for seniority.
There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
September 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9333 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: September 19, 2011 Kashmiri Lal Verma .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
4. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
5. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
6. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State.
**** RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court primarily to seek quashing of the order dated 10.7.1991, whereby an amount of `27980/- was withheld from the gratuity payable to him. The petitioner has further prayed for mandamus directing the respondents to release this amount as was due to him.
During the pendency of this writ petition, the inquiry has been held and ultimately a sum of `18078/- is held recoverable from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner initially would contend that there is no provision to withhold the gratuity or to recover any amount on any account from the gratuity payable to him. Counsel for the State thereupon had relied upon the provisions of Civil Writ Petition No. 9333 of 1992 -2- Rule 9.14(C) read with Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1970, to say that right of the respondents to recover the amount from gratuity has been recognized.
Faced with this situation, the petitioner obviously caught unaware. The petitioner has not taken any step to amend the writ petition to impugn the said order of recovery as on date. No amount is withheld. The amount payable to the petitioner after recovery of `18078/- has already been released to him. Since the relief, which has now been orally claimed, is not pleaded in the writ petition, the same cannot be allowed. The petitioner, at this stage, may make a representation to the respondents to challenge the order of recovery as was made on any ground that is available to him. The same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. No relief otherwise can be granted to the petitioner at this stage.
The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of.
September 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE