C.W.P. No.1294 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.1294 of 1988 Date of Decision:16.09.2008 Pritam Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Pritam Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 4.6.1987 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and for giving a direction to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (for brevity, `the Corporation') to pay to the petitioner the amount claimed in the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act'). The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was employed with the Corporation as Conductor. He remained under suspension from 1.4.1982 to 27.9.1984. His inquiry was not completed within a period of six months. The Corporation has no jurisdiction to keep its employees under suspension beyond six months and that being so, the petitioner is entitled to claim wages amounting to Rs.7500/- after the said period. The petitioner moved an application under Section 33-C(2) ibid to the Labour Court, Patiala claiming the above-mentioned amount. The following issues were framed:- C.W.P. No.1294 of 1988 -2- (i) Whether the application is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to try this application? (ii) To what amount, if any, the workman is entitled? (iii) Relief. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala dismissed the application with no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner has filed this petition. None has put in appearance on behalf of the Corporation to argue this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala in the impugned order with due care and circumspection. Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged with a good deal of force that the petitioner was put under suspension on 1.4.1982 and no inquiry was completed within a period of six months. Thus, on expiry of this period, he was entitled to wages in accordance with Rules 24 and 25 of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations), 1981. The Corporation has not paid wages to the petitioner and, therefore, the Labour Court was to compute the amount payable to him. The Labour Court has gravely erred in not accepting the application of the petitioner. The Corporation be directed to pay wages to him as claimed in his application. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these submissions for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Section 33-C(2) of the Act reads as under:- C.W.P. No.1294 of 1988 -3- “Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may , subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months]: [Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.” As observed in paragraph No.2 of the impugned order, “the respondent filed the reply and objected that the application is not maintainable as the workman has no existing right. It is alleged that he is not entitled to any amount claimed by him as nothing is due to him.” In re: M.D., Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) v. D.D.Gupta, 1994 LLR 487 (Delhi) , it has been held that “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 33C(2) of the Act would come into play.” In view of these observations, in an application to succeed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the workman has to prove two things that the employer has admitted his (workman) existing right and secondly, he (workman) is entitled to the benefit and receive the same from his employer. Here, in this case, the Labour Court has observed that “the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or C.W.P. No.1294 of 1988 -4- computation follows upon an existing right to the money or the benefit in view of its being previously adjudicated or otherwise duly proceeded for.” In the instant case, the Corporation did not admit the existing right of the workman. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record to show that there is any adjudication in favour of the petitioner. That being so, the impugned order does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutional of India. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. September 16, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE