LPA No.1682 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1682 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.9.2011 Bank Employees Federation of India ....Appellant Versus Presiding Officer Central Govt Industrial Tribunal and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. O.P. Batra, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J Appellant-Bank Employees' Federation of India (Punjab State)-writ petitioner by filing the present appeal under Clause X of the Letter Patent has challenged the impugned order dated 1.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which their writ petition filed against the award dated 19.1.2009 (P.2) as well as the order dated 20.10.2010 (P.4) passed in review application by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (for short “the Tribunal”) has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that their application filed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) has wrongly been converted into an Industrial LPA No.1682 of 2011 #2# reference and as such the consequent award dated 19.1.2009 (P.2) and order dated 20.10.2010 (P.4) are not sustainable in view of the Desai award and as such the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed their writ petition while passing the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of award dated 19.1.2009 (P.2) passed by the learned Tribunal reveals that initially an application under Section 29/32 of the Act was filed by one Harish Kapoor on behalf of the Federation but the same was opposed by the Management/respondent No.2. Ultimately the application was converted under Section 2-K of the Act for making a reference before the learned Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, said Harish Kapoor filed a writ petition before this Court but the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.3.2007 by observing that the dispute raised by the writ- petitioner is required to be adjudicated by the learned Tribunal on the sanction of new post and payment of special allowance. Thereafter, it seems that the Government of India vide Notification No.12011/88/2006-IR (B-II), New Delhi dated 28.5.2007 referred the Industrial dispute for adjudication between the appellant and respondent No.2. In these circumstances, the matter was put up before the learned Tribunal and the same was adjudicated upon. The reference dated 28.5.2007 as reproduced in the award dated 19.1.2009 LPA No.1682 of 2011 #3# (P.2) reads as under: “Whether the demand of the Bank Employees Federation of India Punjab State in regard to the non-creation of allowance carrying posts in para No.5.282 and 5.326 of the Desai Awards and non-payment of the allowances thereof, amounts to the violation of the Award by the Management of Indian Bank or not? If so, to what relief they are entitled?” After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Tribunal answered the reference in the following terms: “1. Sh. Harish Kapoor was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the Federation and to represent the Federation before this Tribunal in the present reference. 2. Paras 5.282 and 5.326 of Desai Award has no concern with the creation of posts and there is no violation of any right of any member of the Federation, by the act of management, no creating the posts for conferring the specific performance allowance.” Feeling aggrieved against the award dated 19.1.2009, the appellant filed CWP No.8976 of 2010 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.5.2010 (P.6) with liberty to file a review application before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, a review application was filed but the same was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 22.10.2010 (P.4). Thereafter, a writ petition No.22897 of 2010 was filed against the award dated 19.1.2009 (P.2) and order dated 20.10.2010 (P.4) but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 1.8.2011 while observing that Desai award or its non- LPA No.1682 of 2011 #4# implementation does not fall within the ambit of Section 29 of the Act and as such the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal is perfectly justified. It would not be out of place to mention here that on 12.9.2011, learned counsel for the appellant was directed to place on record the reference sought for adjudication by the learned Tribunal but he has shown his inability by filing an affidavit dated 19.9.2011 of said Harish Kapoor on the ground that the award (P.5) relates to the year 1960, hence the reference is not traceable in the office of Union. A perusal of Clause 5.282 and 5.326 of Notification dated 13.6.1962 (P.5) nowhere substantiates that there was any recommendation or direction for the creation of “allowance carrying posts” rather some allowances were given to certain categories of Workmen as special allowances per month. Under these circumstances, we feel that the contention of the appellant that the application filed under Section 29 of the Act cannot be converted into the reference to be adjudicated by the learned Tribunal is wholly baseless especially in view of the undisputed fact that after making the reference dated 28.5.2007, the appellants have submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal but remained unsuccessful moreso when the earlier writ petition bearing CWP No.8976 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant itself on 17.5.2010 with liberty to file a review petition before the learned Labour Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed LPA No.1682 of 2011 #5# hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 1.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE September 26, 2011 manoj