C.W.P. No. 15394 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15394 of 2001 Decided on : 16-04-2009 General manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot, Batala ....Petitioner VERSUS Narinder Singh and another. ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, A.A.G, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (Oral). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 18.04.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, on an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein respondent No.1-workman claimed salary w.e.f. 1.12.1992 to 31.3.1996 except for the period 1.11.1993 to 30.11.1993 and 1.8.1995 to 31.8.1995. The said application was allowed by the Labour Court holding him entitled to a claim of Rs.1,29,900/-. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable as the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court is perverse for the reason that the certified copies of the pay bills, which have been produced as Ex. RW-2/1 on C.W.P. No. 15394 of 2001 -2- pages 1 to 82, has not been taken into consideration for the months from December, 1992 to March, 1996 by the Labour Court on the ground that the same were not properly proved before the Labour Court. This finding of the Labour Court is against the records as RW-2 Krishan Kumar, who had produced these pay bills had produced the original pay bills as well when he gave his evidence before the Labour Court. She contends that these documents show that the amount of salary has been paid to the workman. On this basis, she contends that the impugned order deserves to be satisfied. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that the Labour Court has rightly ignored these documents as they were never put to the workman in his examination. Since the workman was not confronted with these documents, therefore, the same could not have been taken into consideration. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the statement of RW-2 Krishan Kumar, a copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, clearly shows that the original pay bills were produced by the witness along with the attested copies of the bills. The signatures of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer concerned namely Nirmal Singh has also been identified by the said witness. That being so, the documents having been properly proved before the Labour Court, could not have been ignored by the Labour court. The documents which had been produced if were not acceptable to the workman, the same could have been challenged in the C.W.P. No. 15394 of 2001 -3- cross-examination of the witness. Those documents having been placed on record goes to the basic claim submitted by the workman under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, could not have been ignored by the Labour Court. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court dated 18.4.02001 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.4.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision on the basis of the observations made above. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 18.05.2009. 16th April, 2009. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) Monika JUDGE