Civil Writ Petition No.16713 of 1992 # 1 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Civil Writ Petition No.16713 of 1992 Date of Order: 20.07.2011 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran and another ...Petitioners Versus Shri Karnail Singh, Conductor and another ...Respondents (2) Civil Writ Petition No.14749 of 1993 Director State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh and another. ...Petitioners Versus Sh. Paramjit Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. S.S.Sahu AAG, Punjab, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16713 of 1992 and 14749 of 1993 as they involve adjudication of Civil Writ Petition No.16713 of 1992 # 2 # identical questions of law and fact. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 16713 of 1992. The petitioners, lay challenge to an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, whereby an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been allowed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 33-C(2) of the Act confers powers upon a Labour Court to compute and order payment of any amount payable to the workman under a settlement, an award or where a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money. The stoppage of increments, as a measure of a punishment imposed under service rules does not fall within Section 33-C(2) of the Act. An employee, therefore, cannot approach a Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act to challenge an order of punishment of stoppage of increments. It is further submitted that a government employee is governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and has, therefore, to challenge an order of punishment by filing an appeal under these rules. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned award. Civil Writ Petition No.16713 of 1992 # 3 # The respondents filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming arrears of Rs.45,000/- towards annual increment and bonus payable from 1976 to 1986. The petitioners pleaded that the application is not maintainable as increments have been stopped pursuant to orders of punishment passed under the Rules. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, allowed the petition by holding that as the order stopping increments with cumulative effect has been passed without holding an enquiry, the order is a nullity and the workman is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The petitioners were, therefore, directed to calculate amounts due to the applicant/respondent no.1 by ignoring the orders of punishment. The impugned order is to say the least is without jurisdiction. The Labour Court has assumed the jurisdiction of an appellate authority, under the service rules, thereby rendering the impugned order null and void. Section 33- C(2) of the Act, applies where a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and has already been determined whether by statute or by settlement. In the absence of any award, settlement or determination, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to consider the legality of the order stopping increment with cumulative effect was barred. The remedy of the respondent was to file an appeal under the Rules. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction whether under Section 33-C(2) or any Civil Writ Petition No.16713 of 1992 # 4 # other provisions of the Act to entertain a challenge to orders passed under the service rules, in disciplinary proceedings. The fact that the order may have been passed without holding an enquiry or may have violated certain provisions of the rules would not confer jurisdiction upon the Labour Court. In this view of the matter, as the award is in excess of jurisdiction, the writ petitions are allowed, the award passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, is set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to seek their remedy against orders imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increments, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. July 20, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE