IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20712 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 20, 2009. Vichittar Veena Vats. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Khungar, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, vide which an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, preferred by the petitioner-workman, has been declined. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that perusal of Rule 380 of the Staff Matters (Volume-I) although indicates that no pay and allowances are payable to the petitioner-workman during the period of extra- ordinary leave and the same is not to be counted for increments/provident fund but as per proviso attached thereto, the punishing authority or the competent authority can direct the period of extra ordinary leave to be C.W.P. No. 20712 of 2008. counted for increments as well. He on this basis contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court that she would not be entitled to the claim as it is not a settled right which can be computed in the form of monetary benefits under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be sustained. He contends that there is no bar with regard to the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, this finding as recorded by the Labour Court, is also not sustainable. Relying upon Annexure-P-5, which is a show cause notice, issued by the disciplinary authority, which is Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Zonal Office, Punjab, Chandigarh. He contends that since the disciplinary authority was made the respondent before the Labour Court, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court that the Bank has not been impleaded as a party respondent, also cannot be sustainable. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, only those claims which are settled and can be termed and calculated in the form of monetary benefits, can be allowed. He contends that the claim as made by the petitioner-workman in her application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been disputed by the respondent-management. The petitioner-workman had remained absent on un-authorised leave of 755 days out of which 324 days were upto 10.03.1987 and 431 days thereafter. Until this period is adjudicated upon and decided by the competent authority/court, holding the petitioner-workman entitled to the benefit of increments for the said period, the claim as made before the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. -2- C.W.P. No. 20712 of 2008. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The submissions of counsel for the petitioner-workman with regard to there being no period of limitation for preferring an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as having impleaded the disciplinary authority as a party respondent, do have some force and thus as findings recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. However, the claim made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act wherein stagnation increments have been claimed by the petitioner-workman, cannot be granted without adjudication on the same by the competent court as the right which has been asserted by the petitioner- workman in the form of settled benefit has been disputed by the management and that too putting forth the documentary evidence to justify their stand for non grant of stagnation increments. Since, the claim as made by the petitioner-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, would not be covered under the said provisions in the present form, the dismissal of claim of the petitioner-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court is fully justified. That being so, no illegality has been committed by the Labour Court in rejecting the claim of the petitioner-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The right which has been claimed by the petitioner-workman and the claim as made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been a claim which would fall within the purview of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act unless adjudicated upon by the competent court establishing such rights as has been claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be granted by the -3- C.W.P. No. 20712 of 2008. Labour Court on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That being so, there is no merit in the present writ petition, and therefore, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 20, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No. -4-