RSA No.2833 of 2007 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RSA No. 2833 of 2007 Decided on November 20,2008. Punjab State Electricity Board,Amritsar -- Appellant vs. Raghbir Singh and another --Respondents Present: Mr.Balwinder Singh Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Saurav Kumar,Advocate,for respondent No.1. Mr.C.S.Rana,Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,17,116.45 paise. The case of the plaintiff is that he joined the Municipal Committee, Amritsar as Clerk on 28.9.1964. On the inception of Municipal Corporation, his services were transferred to the Corporation in the year 1977. Vide order dated 29.3.1979 passed by the Commissioner, he was demoted and posted as Bill Distributor. As a result of which, a dispute arose between him and the Municipal Corporation as he was not granted increment till 31.12.1977 nor was given the benefit of revised grade w.e.f. 1.1.1978. He was also not given the salary from 1.4.1979 as a result, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of his dues before the Labour Court. The said application was allowed by Sh. H.S.Bakshi, Presiding Officer, Labour RSA No.2833 of 2007 2 Court, Amritsar vide his order dated 26.11.1988 and he was paid Rs.25,138.59 paise vide order dated 15.3.1990 by Sh.A.B.Singh Wasu, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar. The plaintiff was entangled in a domestic inquiry on the basis of false charges as the municipal authorities were not happy on his filing the said application before the Labour Court. It was alleged that he was removed from service on 9.10.1986 passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, against which he filed an appeal which was allowed by Sh. N.K.Arora, Commissioner Jalandhar Division Jalandhar. The plaintiff was reinstated to his duty as Bill Distributor vide order dated 26.12.1990 to which he joined on 14.1.1991 . Further the case of the plaintiff is that he was not paid arrears of pay and allowance for the period from 9.10.1986 to 14.1.1991 inspite of the fact that the competent authority had not passed any order withholding his pay and allowance for the said period nor any show cause notice was served upon the plaintiff in this regard. The order of the Appellate Authority directing the Municipal Corporation to give him full service benefits was not challenged in any appeal or revision by the appellant and the same has become final. As the defendants did not release wages of the plaintiff, to which he was entitled to, a legal notice was served by the plaintiff on 2.7.1991 under Section 396 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and another notice to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar for releasing the amount of Rs. 1,17,116.45 paise as wages from 9.10.1986 to 14.1.1991along-with interest @ 18% per annum. Since the said amount was not being paid, the plaintiff had filed the present suit. After receipt of the notice, the defendants filed written RSA No.2833 of 2007 3 statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was alleged that the plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated 09.10.1986 by the Commissioner on certain charges of imputations and the departmental inquiry was not on the basis that the plaintiff had filed an application before the Labour Court . All other averments made in the plaint were denied and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff was required to serve a notice under Section 396 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act before filing the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the arrears of pay and allowances from 9.10.1986 to 14.1.1991 ? OPP 5. Relief: After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and decreed the suit with costs. It was ordered that defendant No.2. (Punjab State Electricity Board) shall pay all arrears of pay and allowances to the plaintiff w.e.f. 9.10.1986 to 14.1.1991 along-with interest @ 9% per annum from 27.8.1990 till realization within three months from the order dated 21.12.2005. Respondent No.2. (Punjab State Electricity Board) filed the RSA No.2833 of 2007 4 first appeal in which it was alleged that the arrears demanded by the plaintiff relate to 09.10.1986 to 14.1.1991 whereas it had taken over the electricity wing of the Municipal Corporation only on 1.4.1995. So, under these circumstances, there was no liability of the Punjab State Electricity Board to pay the aforesaid amount and liability if any, was that of the Municipal Corporation. The learned first Appellate Court after examining the entire matter, and the issues involved found that at the time when the Punjab State Electricity Board had the electricity wing of the Municipal Corporation, on 1.4.1995, that was taken over with all assets and liabilities. Thus, the liability to pay the amount in question was also transferred to the Punjab State Electricity Board. On these premises, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Mr.Balwinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant (P.S.E.B) has raised the same argument which was raised before the Courts below that the appellant (P.S.E.B) was not liable to make the payment to the plaintiff of his arrears in respect of the period from 9.10.1986 to 14.1.1991 as the electricity wing of the Municipal Corporation was taken over by the appellant (P.S.E.B) on 1.4.1995. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.2. has,however,categorically submitted that when the electricity wing of the Municipal Corporation was taken over by the appellant, it was decided to take over all the assets and liabilities. Since arrears of salary due to the plaintiff was also a liability of the electricity wing of the Municipal Corporation, which had been taken over by the P.S.E.B, it was for the appellant to make the payment and not the Municipal Corporation. RSA No.2833 of 2007 5 Under these circumstances, I do not find any error in the approach of the Courts below insofar as the question is concerned about the burden to make the payment by the defendant-appellant Punjab State Electricity Board to the plaintiff. No other point has been raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. November 20,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge Refer to Reporter—Yes / No.