C.W.P. No.9292 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.9292 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.10.2008 State of Punjab and others .....Petitioners Vs. Surinder Paul and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the State of Punjab and others under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P.1). The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Surinder Paul- respondent (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') submitted his joining report on 28.2.2002 by registered post which was received by the Chief Engineer(R)- petitioner on 1.3.2002. He did not give the same to the appointing authority in a proper way. He never approached the concerned authority in person in order to join his duty. He resumed his duty on 16.5.2003 by giving an affidavit to the Department in which he had solemnly affirmed that he would abide by the directions of this Court. He filed an application under Section 33-(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act') claiming wages from the Department for the period from 28.2.2002 to 15.5.2003. The same was partly allowed holding C.W.P. No.9292 of 2008 -2- that he is entitled to claim Rs.77,812/- for the period from 28.5.2002 to 15.5.2003 vide order Annexure P.1. The Labour Court has not rightly decided the issue that when he was in the Home Guard Department till 28.5.2002 then how he could claim wages for the above-mentioned period. Thus, the impugned order Annexure P.1 dated 8.2.2008 is liable to be quashed for the reasons embodied in this petition. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the applicant has the existing right to sustain the application? 2. At what amount, if any, should the dues of the applicant, be computed? 3. Relief. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar held that “the claim application filed by the applicant- Surinder Paul Singh is partly accepted for a sum of Rs.77,812/- and decided in his favour and against the respondent- department which is enjoined upon to pay the aforesaid amount to the applicant/ workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order for implementation thereof, failing which the applicant/ workman shall also be entitled to interest thereupon @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.” Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioners have preferred this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. C.W.P. No.9292 of 2008 -3- Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the petitioners urged with great eloquence that the workman being in the Home Guard Department till 28.5.2002 could not claim wages for the period in question. He further argued that the Labour Court did not consider paragraph No.2 of the affidavit Annexure P.4 filed by the workman wherein he has solemnly affirmed that he would not file any litigation/ Court case in any Court for back-wages. In these premises, the learned Labour Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. To overcome these submissions, Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate representing the respondent- workman urged with full force that the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court are based on facts as well as documentary evidence and that being so, the same warrant no interference. To fortify his submission, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made in re: Hawa Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and others, 2005(2) Punjab Law Reporter 679, wherein it has been observed that “application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act will be maintainable to recover all such wages including the wages for the period the workman is not allowed to join his duties despite orders of his reinstatement.” I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival cotnentions. As ruled in re: M.D. Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) v. D.D. Gupta, 1994 Labour Laws Reporter 487 (Delhi), “Once there is an admission of the existing right of the workman by the employer in regard to the benefit which the former is entitled to and receive from the latter, Section 33-C(2) of the Act would come into play.” The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has observed that C.W.P. No.9292 of 2008 -4- “The dispute with regard to improper submission of joining report has been proved to be groundless. MW-1 has denied the receipt of letter dated 28.2.2002 Ex.WX concerning joining report in their department but admitted that copy thereof is available in the record which he had brought during his cross-examination. He further admitted that the applicant was not allowed to join pursuant to his joining report dated 28.2.2002 as the Department had decided to have a resort to Hon'ble the High Court. He further admitted that Hon'ble the High Court did not grant any stay.” To my mind, this evidence is based on facts. MW2 admitted signatures of Superintendent of the Department on the margin of the joining report submitted by the applicant and exhibited as M-5. To say the least of it, on going through the entire evidence discussed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it emanates that in no manner, the impugned order can be faulted with. Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere therewith in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition being meritless is dismissed. October 30, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE