CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.02.2010 CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) State Bank of India ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others ....... RESPONDENTS CWP No. 16550 of 2009(O&M) State Bank of India ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others ....... RESPONDENTS CWP No. 16529 of 2009 (O&M) State Bank of India ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) By this order, I propose to dispose of CWP No. 16445 of 2009 titled as State Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others, CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected cases 2 CWP No. 16550 of 2009 titled as State Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others and CWP No. 16529 of 2009 titled as State Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others as the question involved in all three writ petitions is same and the facts are also similar in all these cases. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an Award dated 17.03.2009 was passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2), wherein, on the basis of an agreement entered into during the Pre-Lok Adalat, six cases, which were preferred by the workman-respondent No. 3, were allowed to be withdrawn on the ground that the Management had assured him that there shall be no pecuniary loss or loss in the retirement benefits. After passing of the said order, an application was moved by the petitioner-Management dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) stating therein that the portion of the Award, which stated that the assurance of the Management that there shall be no pecuniary loss or loss in the retirement benefits, be deleted. The said application was returned in original by the Court stating that the Award has, as yet, not been published and the application cannot be entertained at this stage. Thereafter an application (Annexure P-8) was moved by the workman-respondent No. 3, which was decided by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh vide order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P-9) holding therein that the application moved by the workman could not be allowed and the claim, which he has made in the said application, was not maintainable before the Tribunal as the powers of the implementation of the Awards and orders are not with the Tribunal. CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected cases 3 However, the liberty was granted to respondent No. 3 to approach the competent authority. Thereafter, the workman-respondent No. 3 had preferred an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh for implementation of the Award and grant of his benefits. On this, a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P-10), to which response has been filed by the petitioner-Management dated 24.09.2009 (Anneuxre P-11). It would not be out of way to mention here that after the agreement was entered into before the Pre-Lok Adalat and on a consent given by respondent No. 3-workman, permission was granted to the petitioner-Bank vide order dated 12.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh to finalize the departmental enquiry, which was pending against respondent No. 3- workman. As a consequence of the permission granted by the Court, the Bank proceeded to finalize the disciplinary proceedings against him and passed an order of removal. The said order is dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure P-3). Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by respondent No. 3-workman on 04.06.2009 along with supplementary appeal, which is dated 25.06.2009. After consideration of the appeal, the Appellate Authority has rejected the said appeal, as has been informed by the counsel for the petitioner, on 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-4). Counsel for respondent No. 3 states that this order has, as yet, not been received by the workman. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that as a matter of fact, an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act has also been preferred by respondent No. 3-workman dated CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected cases 4 18.11.2009 (Annexure P-12) and the same is pending before the Labour Court for adjudication. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman, who is now claiming additional benefits would not be entitled to the same in the light of the order of removal by the Management. He further contends that the proceedings initiated by the workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Act as also before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh are not maintainable for the reason that he is claiming much more than he is entitled to as per the Award passed by the Labour Court. He, on this basis, contends that the said proceedings deserve to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the claim has been made by the workman-respondent No. 3 on the basis of the Award and whatever he is entitled to as per the claim granted by the Award, he has made before the competent authority in all six cases. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner-Management, if so desires, can contest the same before the appropriate Forum. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the Award passed by the Labour Court is by agreement. The Labour Court has not determined the claims of the parties on merits and the order has been passed on the basis of the agreement. Respondent No. 3-workman has submitted his claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh as also the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, where admittedly the petitioner- Management has already filed its response to the claim put forth by the workman and the same is pending adjudication. In the light of the above position, it would be just and CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected cases 5 appropriate that the petitioner be given liberty to put forth all the grounds, which he has put in the present writ petition, before the competent authority where the claims have been lodged by respondent No.3-workman. The competent authority shall consider the claims/counter claims as also the objections of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law. The present petitions are disposed of with above observation. Any observation made by the Labour Court in its order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P-9) shall have no bearing on the proceedings pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh and the Labour Court on an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 23, 2010 pj CWP No. 16445 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected cases 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16529 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 23.02.2010 State Bank of India ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) For orders see CWP No. 16445 of 2009 titled as State Bank of India vs. Presiding Presiding Officer, Central Government Industry Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 23, 2010 pj