IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 2750 of 2007 Date of Decision: 1.9.2010. Satbir Singh and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr.Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G. Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis by the respondent no.2. On completion of 3 years of service, they were appointed as unskilled attendants in the year 1987. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.10.1988 the Board of Directors of the Sugar Mill vide resolution no. 26 dated 5.10.1988 adjusted 148 daily wagers working without service break since 25.2.1987 as permanent attendants in the unskilled grade of Rs. 200- 265/- plus usual allowances etc. Their appointment was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The appointees were placed on probation for one year. While these petitioners were serving the State of Haryana passed Haryana Prohibition Act, 1996 while adopting the policy of total prohibition w.e.f. 1.7.1996. Consequently, the distillery units of the sugar mill had to be closed. On closure of the distillery units as many as 209 workers including the petitioners were rendered surplus. After serving the statutory notice, they were retrenched in accordance with provisions of the CWP. No. 2750 of 2007 -2- Industrial Disputes Act. In the year 1998 the State Govt. on re- consideration permitted manufacturing of liquor in the State w.e.f. 1.4.1998. Resultantly, the sugar mill started manufacturing of liquor. It was decided to re-employ the retrenched workers. 154 retrenched workers including the petitioners filed CWP No. 14967 of 1998 before this Court for their re- employment. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23.5.2002 directing the respondents to adjust the unadjusted petitioners within three months. It was further directed that the original seniority of the retrenched workers shall be considered at the time of their re-employment. Out of 209 retrenched employees 131 were taken back in service and 78 employees remained to be re-employed. The respondent-sugar mill filed an S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which also came to be disposed of vide order dated 4.8.2003 upholding the order of the High Court for re- employment. It was further directed that re-employment must be on the basis of seniority. In view of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court petitioners were also re-employed. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the persons re-employed have been placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 3850/-, whereas the petitioners have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2750/-. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 22.7.2006 (Annexure P-5), whereby the probation period of petitioners was extended for one year. It is now admitted position that on expiry of the probation period all the petitioners stand confirmed. Now the only dispute remains to be considered is regarding the pay scale. Petitioners have referred certain names in para 30 of the writ petition alleging that these persons have been placed in the high pay scale, whereas the petitioners have been placed in the CWP. No. 2750 of 2007 -3- lower pay scale. The respondents in their reply have categorically denied the averments made in the writ petition and it is contended that all the re- employed employees have been placed in the same pay scale. It is, however, stated that the employees who were earlier appointed on the basis of their seniority before the retrenchment are getting more increments and thus, their emoluments are higher than the petitioners. There is nothing on record to indicate that any retrenched employee junior to the petitioners was employed earlier than the petitioners. Re-employment has been made on the basis of seniority. Obviously, those who were appointed earlier than the petitioners have to be granted increments and their emoluments are higher than the petitioners. There is no discrimination in any manner. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.9.2010. lucky