Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power ... vs Presiding Officer And Anr on 28 October, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20219 OF 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20219 OF 2012
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 28, 2014
Punjab State Power Corporation, Patiala and others
.......Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda
and another .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Ms.Meena Bansal, Advocate for
the petitioners.
Mr.Ramesh Goyal, Advocate with
Mr.Arihant Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The Punjab State Power Corporation, Patiala has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda whereby application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') has been allowed and directions had been issued to pay the difference of salary by treating the workman as a full time Sweeper w.e.f. 27.8.2001.
2. As per claim application submitted by respondent No.2, she was serving as part time Sweeper since 1974 but in SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20219 OF 2012 2 March 1992, her salary was reduced and such action was challenged before Labour Court, Bathinda and vide order dated 13.9.1993, directions were issued to treat her as a full time Sweeper and to make payment of salary accordingly. Thereafter, her working hours were reduced to six hours vide order dated 21.9.1995 and further reduced to four hours per day on 10.7.1998 and salary was reduced accordingly. Even such action was assailed and Labour Court, Bathinda vide order, dated 4.10.2000, issued directions to release full salary to her. In the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, it was asserted that vide letter dated 27.8.2001 issued by the S.D.O., M.E. Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Bathinda, her salary had again been reduced by treating her working hours to be four hours daily. Claim was to grant to her salary by treating her as a full time Sweeper from 27.8.2001 and the same has been allowed in the light of impugned order dated 5.6.2012 at Annexure P5.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
4. Section 9-A of the Act reads in the following terms:
"9A. Notice of change - No, employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change, -
(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20219 OF 2012 3 proposed to be effected; or
(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice;
Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change -
(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any [settlement or award]: or
(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply."
5. Mandate of the statutory provision re-produced hereinabove is that an employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions in service applicable to a workman cannot effect such change without giving the workman likely to be affected by the proposed change a prior notice and in the prescribed manner.
6. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda has returned a finding of fact that no notice as regards reduction of the working hours to four hours daily had been given to SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20219 OF 2012 4 respondent No.2 prior to passing of the order dated 3.8.2001. It has gone uncontroverted that the notice, Exhibit R1, and the receipt/endorsement, Exhibit R2, were dated 19.11.2002 and 28.2.2002 respectively, i.e. subsequent to the issuance of the letter/order dated 27.8.2001 whereby reduction of working hours/salary of the workman had been directed.
7. The finding as regards non-compliance of Section 9-A of the Act is upon due appreciation of evidence adduced on record. No basis for interference is made out.
8. Petition is dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
OCTOBER 28, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK
2014.11.04 10:19
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document