IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19711 of 1998 Date of Decision : May 05, 2010. The Chief Engineer, AHPC and MHPC, SCO No. 43, Sector-17, Chandigarh, and others ...... Petitioners. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 31.12.1996 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide which the reference was allowed in favour of the Workmen, holding them entitled to the benefit of fixed medical allowance and conveyance allowance. Counsel for the petitioner/Board contends that since the respondent/Workmen were work-charged employees of a project, they were not entitled to the same benefits as were extended to the regular employees. Therefore, no parity could have been drawn between the work-charged employees and regular employees for grant of the same benefits as far as fixed medical allowance and conveyance allowance are concerned. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Workmen has referred to the Award, wherein the Chief Engineer of the project in question, where the respondent/Workmen were employed had conveyed, vide Memo dated 28.02.1992 (Ex.W/30) to Superintending Engineer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Construction Circle that payment regarding fixed medical allowance to the C.W.P. No. 19711 of 1998. -2- work-charged employees of the project had to be extended as they are also covered by the definition of Government employees and the same benefit has to be given to them on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the circular, which granted the said benefit. As regards conveyance allowance, he contends that the respondent/Workmen were earlier employees of the Irrigation Department before the project was handed over to the petitioner/Board, and they were being paid conveyance allowance, therefore, they could not be deprived of the said benefit in view of the terms of taking over of services of the employees. On this basis he contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts are not in dispute that the respondent/Workmen were initially employees of the Irrigation Department, Punjab Government. They were subsequently transferred from the project to the petitioner/Board. The work-charged employees for all intents and purposes were treated at par with the regular employees as recommended by the Third Punjab Pay Commission in its report (Ex.W/3). The letter dated 28.02.1992 (Ex.W/30) of the Chief Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Construction clearly shows that the fixed medical allowance benefit to the work-charged employees of the project had to be extended on the same terms and conditions as were laid down in the circular made applicable to the Government employees as they were covered by the said terms. That being so, the relief granted to the respondent/Workmen was based on the letter issued by the petitioner/Board itself, therefore, they were rightly held entitled to the said claim of fixed medical allowance. As far as conveyance allowance is C.W.P. No. 19711 of 1998. -3- concerned, it is not in dispute that earlier respondent/Workmen were entitled to the said benefit. Before the transfer of the project to the petitioner/Board, they were employees of the Irrigation Department of Punjab Government and, therefore, were entitled to the same benefit. On taking over the employees of the project after transfer of the same to the petitioner/Board, the same could not be reduced or withdrawn in the light of terms of taking over of the project. The claim, thus, is also in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. The finding given by the Labour Court is based on the evidence led by the parties and the same cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 05, 2010. sjks.