Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1273 of 2001 (Old No.4422/1998) The U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited Unit Doiwala, District Dehradun through its General Manager and others. …… Petitioners Versus The Labour Court, U.P. Dehradun and another. ……… Respondents ……………….. Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: Aug. 06,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.1997 passed by the Labour Court, in Miscellaneous Case No.347 of 1996, contained in Annexure No.XIII to the writ petition. 2. The respondent No.2/workman moved an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that he has been working with the employers’ mill since 1990-91 on daily wages on the post of cane clerk but he is not being paid his wages as per the recommendation of the Third Wage Board and claimed the difference of wages from 1991 to 31.05.1996 2 amounting to Rs. 24,114.90 paise. The employers contested the case before the Labour Court and did not dispute about the engagement of the respondent No.2 on daily wages. The petitioners alleged that the workman was being paid wages as per the agreement dated 21.12.1993 and 21.03.1995 entered into by the Workers Union and the petitioners. The petitioners also alleged it before the Labour Court that earlier identical claim was raised by the Workers Union and the respondent No.2 individually also which were dismissed as withdrawn. It was also pleaded that the recommendation of the Third Wage Board was valid only till 30.09.1993 and the respondent No.2 has raised his claim in the year 1996, therefore the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. The Labour Court after scrutiny of the evidence allowed the application of the respondent No.2 and directed the petitioners to pay the difference of the amount from January 1990 to May 1996, total Rs. 32,549.24 paise alongwith Rs. 200/- as costs. The petitioners also filed review application before the Labour Court which was dismissed by the Labour Court by its order dated 29.10.1997. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 05.07.1997 and 29.10.1997, the petitioner- employers have come up with this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not disputed that the petitioners engaged the respondent No.2/workman on daily wages. The workman filed the application claiming the difference of wages from the petitioners under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which was legally 3 maintainable. The Labour Court having gone through the provisions of the Act, rightly held that the employees /workmen in the sugar industries are entitled to get the remuneration according to Wage Board and did not commit any error or mistake in allowing the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the workman was being paid remuneration according to agreement dated 21.12.1993 which was entered between the parties. The finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that this agreement was not undertaken in the presence of any authority of labour department or conciliation officer and it was also not registered under the provision of Section 6-B of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, hence it has no legal sanctity. The notification of Third Wage Board was in force on the date from which the wages have been claimed by the workman. All the pleas raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court have been discussed by the Labour Court in its award/order. The finding is based on the evidence led by the parties. Hence the matter is concluded by the finding of fact. I do not find any illegality in the award/order passed by the Labour Court. 4. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 06.08.2008 P.Singh