IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1366 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2009 The Manager, Markfed & others. -----Appellants Vs. Gurbachan Singh Bhangoo & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Vishal Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, quashing order dated 14.7.2004, Annexure P-3 and award of Industrial Tribunal dated 26.3.2008, Annexure P-9. 2. The dispute raised by the workmen, who were employed as Chargemen in the Harvesting Combine Unit of the appellant management, was that a resolution dated 8.6.1994 was passed by the appellants to give Additional Pay of Rs.120/- in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to various employees including the Chargemen. However, in the said resolution, this benefit was confined to Chargemen who were in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.800-1400/-, which created an artificial distinction, resulting in denial of the said benefit to the workmen who were in LPA No.1366 of 2009 the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.825-1400/-. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim of the workmen, which led to filing of the writ petition. 3. Learned Single Judge held that there was obvious anomaly in making distinction in group of employees covered by the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/- on the ground that unrevised scale was slightly different. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the employees in unrevised pay scale of Rs.800-1400/- as on 31.12.1985 were on different footing than those covered by the pay scale of Rs.825-1400/-. 6. We do not find any merit in this contention. The benefit of Additional Pay of Rs.120/- per month has been made w.e.f. 1.1.1986, on which date all the employees were in same pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/-. In doing so, there was no relevance of unrevised pay scales. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 09, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2