Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:03.12.2013 vs Presiding Officer on 3 December, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Saluja Mukesh Kumar
CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 1
2013.12.11 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.26448 of 2013
Date of decision:03.12.2013
Union Territory Chandigarh and another
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, UT Chandigarh
and another
...Respondent(s)
CWP NO.26451 of 2013
Union Territory Chandigarh and another
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, UT Chandigarh
and another
...Respondent(s)
CWP NO.26454 of 2013
Union Territory Chandigarh and another
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, UT Chandigarh
and another
...Respondent(s)
CWP NO.26470 of 2013
Union Territory Chandigarh and another
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, UT Chandigarh
and another
...Respondent(s)
Saluja Mukesh Kumar
CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 2
2013.12.11 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Ms.Jaishree Thakur, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of four identical writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 26448 of 2013, CWP No.26451 of 2013, CWP No.26454 of 2013 and CWP No.26470 of 2013 (Union Territory Chandigarh and another v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another), filed by the management against the identical orders passed by the learned Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`the ID Act' for short) allowing the applications in favour of the respondents-workmen. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CWP No.26448 of 2013.
Saluja Mukesh KumarCWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 3 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
The respondent-workman, while working with the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-cum-Director, Transport U.T. Chandigarh, moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act, vide Annexure P-1 claiming the difference of over time, based on the revised pay-scale from 1.1.2006. The petitioner-management filed its reply vide Annexure P-2. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman. Both the parties led their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent-workman was squarely covered by two judgments of this Court. The respondent-workman was held entitled for the amount claimed, by passing the impugned order dated 4.3.2013 (Annexure P-4). Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Labour Court proceeded on an erroneous approach, while passing the impugned order because the respondent-workman was not having any pre- existing claim. Proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act were in the nature of execution, which would be available to the respondent- workman only if he had any pre-existing right or if the same was specifically provided under the statute. She further submits that learned Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order awarding the amount which was based on a disputed claim. She relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen and another, 1974 (4) SCC 696. Finally, she prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 4 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case warranting any interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is undisputed on record that the petitioner-management used to adopt the revised pay-scales of the State of Punjab. As and when the pay- scale of the employees of the State of Punjab used to be revised, the same would be adopted by the petitioner-management. When the genuine claim of the respondent-workman was not being accepted by the petitioner- management, he was left with no other option except to approach the learned Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the ID. Act. The claim was contested. The learned Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent-workman was squarely covered by the judgments of this Court. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.
So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. However, the said judgment has been found to be distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the entitlement of the respondent-workman has not been disputed as such. It is also not disputed that the claim of the respondent- workman was covered by more than one judgments of this Court, which have been rightly relied upon by the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter, it is held that the learned Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 5 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Labour Court has rightly appreciated the true facts of the case and followed the judgments of this Court which squarely cover the issue in favour of the respondent-workman. Thus, the impugned order has not been found to be suffering from any illegality and the same deserves to be upheld.
Further, it is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533.
During the course of hearing, when the pointed attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to paras 8 and 9 of the impugned order, she could not deny the factual aspect. Similar controversy was earlier decided by the learned Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act and the similar order passed by the learned Labour Court vide LCA No.308 of 1999 was implemented by the State of Punjab. She could not differentiate the present case on facts. Once it is so, the respondent- workman was definitely having a pre-existing claim which was being illegally denied to him by the petitioner-management.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any fault with the impugned order so far as it was based on the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No. 15807 of 2008 (The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh v. Azad Singh and others), decided on 5.3.2009, which was in turn based on a Division Bench judgment dated 11.8.2003 of this Court passed in CWP No.12530 of 2002 (State of Haryana v. Anirudh and others). Another relevant Division Bench Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 6 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgment of this Court was Jugal Kishore v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) SCT 433. Thus, the learned Labour Court rightly held that the respondent-workman was having a pre-existing claim and it was also covered in his favour vide above-said judgments of this Court.
Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, the learned Labour Court recorded positive findings while relying upon the above-said judgments of this Court. The relevant observations made in para 9 of the impugned order read as under:-
"Learned representative for the applicants has relied upon authority The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh Versus Azad Singh & Others, CWP No.15807 of 2008 decided on 05.03.2009 therein Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the decision of Labour Court granting difference of over time allowance based on the pre- revised and revised pay scales. Hon'ble High Court referred to order passed by Division Bench in State of Haryana Versus Anirudh & Others in CWP No.12530 of 2002 decided on 11.08.2003 in following words and writ petitions filed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh were dismissed."
The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.8.2003 in Anirudh's case (supra) in C.W.P.No.12530 of 2003 has held as follows:-
"The workman had made an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 7 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document claiming for payment of overtime allowance in the sum of Rs.43,241/-. It was argued by the Management before the Labour Court, which has been reiterated in this Court by Ms. Monga, that the Government has not sanctioned payment by difference on account of overtime between the pre- revised amount and the amount which was due after revision. Consequently, there was no pre- existing right which could have been enforced by the workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court, after examination of the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to the payment of overtime allowance in the same ratio as was being paid on the pre-revised pay scale. We are unable to agree with the submission of Ms. Monga to the effect that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to compute the difference of payment on account of overtime between the pre-revised amount and the amount which was due after revision of the pay scale.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed."
These observations of the Division Bench, further support the conclusions reached by me above and I see no reason to take a contrary view Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 8 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping the question of law open in the SLP.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh which would persuade me to take a different view therefrom or interfere with the same. Finding no merit in these writ petitions, I dismiss the same.
Another authority relied upon by learned representative for the applicant is Jugal Kishore Versus State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) SCT 433. (P&H) (DB).
Paragraph No.5 of the same is reproduce below:-
"5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that this petition deserves to succeed. We see no force in the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents that the benefit of higher pay scales of Rs.950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.3050-4350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 could not be given to the petitioner merely on the ground that he has sent the legal notice in the year 2007 after his retirement. It has come on record that similarly situated Book-Binders have already been granted the aforementioned benefit. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the respondent University to grant the said benefit not only to the petitioner but to all such employees once this Court has decided the issue in the Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 9 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document case of V. Sreedharan Nair (supra), which has admittedly attained finality. This Court has already held in a number of cases that it as not necessary for every affected person to approach the Court seeking an order in his/her favour once the matter has already been settled by the Court. The benefit of judicial pronouncements after the same attains finality is required to be given automatically to all such persons whose cases are covered by such decision. We, thus, strongly disapprove taken by the respondents and find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of V.Sreedharan Nair (supra)."
Once the entitlement of the respondent-workman was not in dispute and the issue had already been adjudicated upon by the learned Labour Court vide above-said LCA No.308 of 1999 which stood implemented by the State of Punjab, there was hardly any scope to raise that very issue again that the respondent-workman was not having any pre- existing claim. Thus, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been found to be without any force.
Further, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case in the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court. She also could not press into service any substantive argument so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Labour Court. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner-management by passing the impugned award, Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 10 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which deserves to be upheld.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that all the four writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, all the four writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
03.12.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE