C.W.P. No. 12610 of 1989 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12610 of 1989 Date of Decision :10.12.2010 The Jatana Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. .......... petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda & another ...... Respondents CORAM : Hob'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri Present : Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This petition is under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari / mandamus, to quash the award dated 22.9.1988 (Annexure P-1). The workman Keemat Ram had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act) claiming money value of the benefit of re-employment with the employer under settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act. As per the agreement dated 5.12.1985, the employer had agreed to re-employ the workman as and when he required the services of a Peon. This settlement was before the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer. According to the workman the employer C.W.P. No. 12610 of 1989 -2- appointed one Megha Singh as a Peon without offering the employment to the petitioner. The stand of the respondent-employer i.e. the Jatana Kalan CASS Ltd., Fatehnmaluka is that they had offered employment to the workman but he had refused to accept the same. Thereafter the job was given to Megha Singh. The Labour Court after considering the evidence led by the workman and respondents came to the conclusion that the benefit of promised re-employment was admissible to the workman after calculating the benefit in terms of money. The application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was answered in favour of the workman with a direction to the respondents to make payment of `9745/-. This payment was for salary w.e.f. 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987 and 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988. The award has been challenged by the respondent Society. Mr. M.S. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that there is a disputed question of fact “Whether the workman was an employee of the Society or not ? This question could have been raised before the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. The Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act could not decide this fact and compute the wages, which have been given to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P. and another vs. Brijpal Singh 2005(4) RSJ 716 and C.W.P. No. 12610 of 1989 -3- Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and another (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 235 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Central Group and others Vs. Motiram S. Thakare and others 2005(4) RSJ 341 contended that in an undetermined claim the Labour Court can not exercise jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Appropriate Forum to decide such a claim would be a Labour Court under reference under Section 10 of the Act. Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has argued that there was a settlement before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer on 5.12.1985. The entitlement of the Workman has been recognised by this settlement. Therefore, an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for implementation or enforcement of this settlement was the correct Forum. The learned Labour Court has rightly computed the benefit of re-employment in terms of money under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. As per the settlement there existed a relationship of workman and employer and the order of the learned Labour Court is liable to be upheld. The learned Labour Court by passing the award has determined the following two important aspects :- 1. That there was a settlement between workman and the respondent society before the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer on 5.12.1985. 2. That the society was bound by the settlement and this settlement created relationship of workman and C.W.P. No. 12610 of 1989 -4- employer for all intents and purposes. As a matter of fact one Megha Singh has been appointed as Peon after 5.12.1985. Atma Singh, Secretary of the Society has deposed that the workman was offered job on daily wages as per the settlement but he insisted that he should be appointed on permanent basis. However, in the cross-examination he has admitted that such offer was not made in writing. He has also admitted that the workman was not contacted after 5.12.1985. From this factual position, it is clear that one Megha Singh was appointed in April 1986, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to join the Society. In view of the above factual position, the award suffers from no illegality and it is held that the award is as per law. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10.12.2010 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE