IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA NO. 842 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.1.2011 *** Rajinder Sharma .. Appellant Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents. *** HEMANT GUPTA, J(ORAL). Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on January 12, 2010 whereby the writ petition challenging an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was dismissed. The claim of the appellant is for parity in wages as a contractual employee. Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised any industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of discrimination in the matter of wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & Another (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 235 has held that the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) are akin to the execution proceedings. In such proceedings, the rights of the parties cannot be adjudicated upon. It is said:- “4. It is clear that there has been no earlier adjudication by any forum of the claim of these workmen of their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate at which the regular workmen of the establishment are being paid and there is no award or settlement to that effect. In short, this claim of the workmen has neither been adjudicated nor recognised by the employer in any award or settlement. The real question therefore is : Whether in these circumstances, without a prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen to be paid at the same rate as the regular employees, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages claimed by them on that basis are maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act? The aforesaid question was answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the following manner:- “12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court’s power under Section 33- =2= C(2) like that of the Executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. 13. In these matters, the claim of the respondent- workmen who were all daily-rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. The workmen’s claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workmen on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33-C(2).” It has been found by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order that the appellant was engaged by respondent No.3 an independent entity, though deputed with respondents No.1 and 2 whereas the appellant has claimed that he was engaged by respondent No.2 as an contractual employee. In view of the said fact we find that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed with liberty to the appellant to raise an industrial dispute if so advised and permissible in law so as to establish his right. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 19 , 2011 Jiten