IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6395 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010. Chief Engineer R.S.D.C. Shahpurkandi Irrigation Works, Punjab through the XEN Project and RM Division, R.S.D.C. Shahpurkandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Assistant Controller Grade-I and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Through this writ petition, the petitioner/Management has challenged the Recovery Order/Notice dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner had been directed to appear before him for deposit of amount as assessed by the District Collector for recovery amounting to Rs. 5,56,314/-. Counsel for the petitioner/Management contends that the Award dated 11.12.2000 (Annexure-P-5) was passed in favour of the respondent No. 2/Workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till his actual reinstatement. In compliance with the Award passed by the Labour Court, the Workman was taken back in service on 11.03.2002. Full back wages, as per the Award, were paid to him taking basic pay of the Workman as per the pay scale plus C.W.P. No. 6395 of 2009. -2- dearness allowance and was granted the benefit from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement. On calculation of the details, an amount of Rs. 2,96,100/- was paid to the Workman and an receipt to that effect was also attached with the response filed by the petitioner/Management on an application moved by the Workman under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short “the Act”). She on this basis contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court stood fully complied with as full back wages were paid to the Workman. Her further contention is that if still the Workman is not satisfied with the amount disbursed to him, he has remedy to approach appropriate Forum under Section 33-C(2) of the Act as the Award dated 11.02.2000 does not determine the amount, which the Workman would be entitled to. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2/Workman submits that the back wages as assessed by the Labour Court has been received by the Workman, but the same are not the full back wages, to which the Workman is entitled to. He contends that as per the Standing Orders applicable to the Workman, he is entitled to increments and dearness allowance thereon also as he on completion of 240 days in service becomes a Workcharged employee and all similar Workcharged employees are being paid the benefit of increments and dearness allowance. He on this basis contends that the Award has not been fully satisfy as far as the Workman is concerned and the amount assessed by the Competent Authority for recovery against the Management is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. C.W.P. No. 6395 of 2009. -3- Relief granted to the Workman by the Labour Court, vide its Award dated 11.12.2000 is reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and full back wages from the date of termination of the Workman till the date of his actual reinstatement. It is the stand of the Management that Rs. 2,96,100/- has been paid to the Workman as back wages. The Management has also contended that the Workman is not entitled to the benefit of increments as he was a daily wager and has been given the minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowance. This contention has not been accepted by counsel for respondent/Workman to the extent that as per the Standing Orders, the Workman is entitled to increments and dearness allowance thereon as well. He has not disputed the fact that the Workman has received Rs. 2,96,100/- As there is no determination of the amount of entitlement of the Workman in the Award and there is dispute with regard to the said amount between the parties, the remedy available to the Workman is to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the appropriate Forum. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The Order dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, is hereby set aside. The liberty is granted to the Workman to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, if so advised, and claim his benefits, which he is entitled to, according to him as per the Award in accordance with law. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 04, 2010. sjks.