STTEA OF PM.. GTHROUH: ”'n': "m 25m. :H y Im ‘m ‘ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH :M HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Writ PetitionISI No. 3 133 l 2005 PETITIONERs Raghubir Singh Dilh'war Versus - RESPONDENTS State of M.P. and others («Ky Apgearance: Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel for the petitionef. I Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. o R A L - O R D E R (Passed on 17.3.2010) l. This petition has been tiled by the petitioner alleging discrimination, Victimization and inaction on the part of respondents in not extending regular pay—scale and benefits available to a work charge Driver of public Works Department. Petitioner has prayed that he be given the pay-scale of work charge employee and other benefits available to work charge employee as per rules and he also be. given benefits like C.P.F. from 30.1%1987. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Jeep Driver in Public Works Department, on daily wagesfvide order dated 1.6.1986 (Annexure A-I). Another order was passed on 30th December, 1987 (Annexure A—II) by which the petitioner, a daily. wage employee was appointed against the post of Driver in Public Works Department in the pay—scale of Rs.870-—~ 1420/—. Later on, petitioner was terminated from service. Against the order of termination, petitioner approached Labour Court. On 1.10. 1991, x an award (Annexure A —IV) was passed by the Labour Court granting reinstatement though without back wages. As the petitioner was aggrieved on account of certain deduction from his salary, he again approached the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (henceforth “the Act of 1936”). Vide order dated 30th June 1993, Competent Authority under the Act of 1936 held that petitioner was entitled to payment of wages in the pay-scale of Rs.870--—1420/- and less payment amounts to illegal deduction. Having recorded such finding, the Authority directedpayment of amount of Rs.1 1 12.30/— which was illegally deducted. According to the petitioner, though the Competent Authority passed an order for payment of wages in the pay—scale of Rs.870—1420/—, no penalty was imposed, though it was liable to be imposed. This led to filing of an appeal against the part of order by which Competent Authority refused to impose penalty. The Appellate Authority Vide its order dated 22.6’1994, allowed the appeal directing payment of penalty also. . Later on, alleging illegal deduction for subsequent period, petitioner again approached the Competent Authority under the Act of 1936 and again an order was passed on 9.6. 1994 for payment of wages illegally deducted but Without any penalty. Petitioner again filed an appeal which was allowed vide‘order dated 19.9.1995 and again penalty was imposed. However, it appears that respondent authorities again refused to pay wages to the petitioner in the pay-scale, Which led to filing of another case and an order was then passed on 22.1.1997 allowing the petition and again directing payment of wages which were illegally deducted though without penalty. Yet another appeal was filed which was allowed on 21.1.1998 imposing penalty in respect of the wages which were illegally deducted. In the said appeal, Industrial Court observed that against the order passed by the Labour Court and orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Act of 1936 on various occasions in the past and against the order passed by Appellate Authority in those cases from time to time, no remedy was taken by respondents in any higher Court and those orders attained finality. Yet, action of the respondents in repeating the illegality and driving the petitioner to the Authority under the Act of 1936 one after the other is Wholly unjustified. The Industrial Court further observed that as dispute between the parties with regard to entitlement of wages of the petitioner having attained finality, respondents are obliged to respect the orders and proceedings of the Competent Authority under the Act of 1936. ’(\( 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that time and again, petitioner approached the Authority under the Act of 1936 and it has been repeatedly decided by the Competent Statutory Authority under the Act of 1936 that the petitioner is entitled to pay in the pay-scale of 872---1420/ . As those orders have attained finality, respondents are obliged under the law to make payment of wages to the petitioner in the pay—scale of 872——— 1420/— and the action of respondents in deducting the said amount every year and driving the petitioner to approach for similar relief after every deduction is arbitrary. } r 5. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Driver for 6O days only and later on, he was terminated. Though, he was reinstated by the order of Labour Court, he was found unfit for regularization by Screening Committee as reflected from order dated 4.4.1990 (Annexure R—III). It has also been submitted that this case wasoriginally filed before the Tribunal, which had no jurisdiction, as the petitioner claimed relief for payment of s wages which fell within the jurisdiction of Authority under the Act of 1936. 6. True it is that the petitioner was initially appointed for 60 days on daily Wage basis, but later on, when he was terminated, he approached the Labour Court and an award in his favour was passed on 1.10.1991 ordering reinstatement. There is nothing on record to show that this award of reinstatement was challenged by the respondents. Respondents have not averred that such award was ever challenged. It thus attained finality. There is also nothing on record to show that later on petitioner’s services were terminated by complying with the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the contrary, from various orders and proceedings placed on record, it is found that when the petitioner was not paid wages in the pay-scale Rs. 872-1420/-, he approached Competent Authority under the payment of wages Act 1936, which held that petitioner is entitled to wages in the aforesaid scale of pay. However, even thereafter, for every subsequent period, wages were not paid as per the order of the Competent Authority and petitioner kept on filing applications before the Competent Authority and on each such occasion order was passed in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached to the Appellate Authority/Industrial Court in so far as non imposition of "penalty is concerned, the Appellate Authority also passed orders one after the other in respect of different period, imposing penalty. There is nothing on record to show that those orders and proceedings l passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1936 were ever assailed before the higher Court by the respondents. Under these circumstances, as fong as the petitioner continued in employment, respondents are obliged to pay him wages in the pay scale of Rs. 872—1420/—. . In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Secreta State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi 3 and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, 12008) 5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, though, the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularization in service, as long as he is continued in service, in View of orders of the Competent Authority, petitioner is entitled to payment of wages as per the orders of the Competent Authority under the Act of 1936. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for payment of wages as per the orders passed from time to time by the Competent Authority under the Act of 1936. However, it is made clear that this Court has not declared any entitlement for regularization in service. Sd/- ‘Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judg Praveen . Petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.