CWP No.17045 of 2008 and CWP No. 17086 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.17045 of 2008 Date of decision September 7, 2009 Muncipal Corporation Faridabad through its Commissioner. ....... Petitioners Versus Parsu son of Sh. Nathu Ram and another. ........ Respondents ` CWP No.17086 of 2008 Date of decision September 7, 2009 Muncipal Corporation Faridabad through its Commissioner. ....... Petitioners Versus Jagdish son of Sh. Nathu Ram and others. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Arvind Rajotiai, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No **** 1. Both the writ petitions address the same issue and they are disposed of by a common order. CWP No.17045 of 2008 and CWP No. 17086 of 2008 2. The order in challenge is one of direction to the respondent to pay the wages as per the pay scale granted to the workman from the date of issuance of appointment letter. The objection from the Management against that order was on the basis that all these workmen were employed at a time when the regular employees had gone on strike and when they found that the regular employees were not returning to service, employment had been given to them on regular basis. It is admitted even by the counsel for the petitioner that in the order of appointment of the workmen on regular basis, it was not subject to any condition that if the batch of employees who had stuck work and who had not resumed were to resumé duty, their services would be terminated. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also that the workman could not have claimed any relief under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If there was any condition regarding the engagement, it was only stated that the workmen were put on probation and that their services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. It is nobody's case that the workman was being terminated by operation of the above clause. On the hand, the Management only wanted to contend that by virtue of the settlement entered into with the previous batch of workmen, they had to give employment to them and therefore the services of all the workmen who had subsequently been employed were not necessary. They were being paid only daily wages. So long as the workmen had not been terminated in any manner that is lawfully provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman were entitled to treat themselves as in service and claim the wages as provided in the order of appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contends that the workman can have no remedy before the Labour Court CWP No.17045 of 2008 and CWP No. 17086 of 2008 under Section 33 (c)(2). In my view, such objection is not tenable since I have already pointed out that there is no order terminating the services of the workmen. The order passed in the circumstances was perfectly justified. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in a similar batch of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted stay. As regards this particular order which is impugned, admittedly there is no proceeding before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the powers of this Court cannot be fettered by any interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The writ petitions are therefore, dismissed confirming the order already passed by the Labour Court. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 7, 2009 archana