C.W.P No. 9908 of 1992 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 9908 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : April 21, 2011 State of Haryana and others, ...... Petitioners v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak & another, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG Haryana for the petitioners. Mr. J.N.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the State of Haryana has challenged the order dated 11.2.1992 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which an application under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by respondent No.2 claiming parity of back wages with the regularly appointed Beldars, was allowed. Counsel for the petitioners has mainly argued that Section 33 C.W.P No. 9908 of 1992 (O&M) ::2:: (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not operate in a situation where the claim is for equal pay for equal work. Technically, this view may be unexceptionable. However, counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would not interfere if the substantive relief granted is equitable and just. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ranbir Singh vs State of Haryana, 1998(2) SCT 189, wherein it has been held as follows :- “ In view of the fact that petitioners who are similarly situated like the present petitioners have been granted the relief, we see no reason to deny the relief to the petitioners even in these petitions. The petitioners have admittedly worked for a considerable period in the department of the State Government continuously uninterrupted and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The State itself is paying different salary on monthly basis to these persons, to some the minimum wages and to some on the basis of the Common Scheduled Rates. We see no reason why the petitioners should not be placed at parity to the limited extent that they should be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale with deafness allowance alone as granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent cases.” Counsel for respondent No.2 has also relied upon Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2001(2) SCT 732, wherein it has been held as follows :- “The petitioners, who are working as Ledger Clerks, Ledge-keepers, Pump Operators, Mali-cum-Chowkidars, Fitters, Petrol Men and Surveyor etc., and are satisfying the afore-stated essential ingredients, are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale (basic pay and dearness allowance alone) admissible to their counter-parts working on regular basis in the same department.” Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly conceded that this is indeed the position in law. Consequently, even while dismissing this writ petition, I deem C.W.P No. 9908 of 1992 (O&M) ::3:: it appropriate to leave the question of law posed unanswered to be answered in an appropriate matter. So ordered. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2011. JUDGE `kk'