IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5015 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 30, 2009. Amritsar District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited and another. ...... Petitioners. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, vide which an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, preferred by the respondent No. 2-workman has been allowed, granting him the relief of the amount claimed by him in compliance to and in accordance with the award dated 10.01.1991, passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, in favour of the respondent No. 2-workman. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that vide its award dated 10.01.1991, the Labour Court has held as follow :- “20. In result, I answer this reference in the negative and direct reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages with effect from 23rd September, 1977 less wages he earned when he was employed in Haryana Milk Food, C.W.P. No. 5015 of 2009. Milkfed Hoshiarpur Milk Producers Union, Jalandhar and at Baghdad.” Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman while moving an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act had not stated or mentioned the amount he had earned at Baghdad for which the findings has already been given by the Labour Court, vide its award dated 10.01.1991. He contends that although the workman before the Labour Court had disputed the factual aspect with regard to his work at Baghdad but nevertheless, the Labour Court had taken the period of one year which the workman had spent at Baghdad assessing the wages for the said period as Rs. 50,000/-. In this way by deducting this amount from the total amount claimed by the workman and also the amount which the workman has admitted he had earned while working with Haryana Milk Food, Milkfed at Hoshiarpur, Milkfed Producers Union, Jalandhar, and Milk Plant Verka. He contends that the assessment made by the Labour Court is on a much lesser side for the wages earned by the workman for one year he worked in Baghdad. This contention of counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted for the reason that nothing has been placed on record to assert on the basis of which it could be assessed that the amount as calculated by the Labour Court is on the lower side. In this situation, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been preferred by the workman which was decided in his favour, vide order dated 02.05.1994 (Annexure-P-1). This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.W.P. No. 15436 of 1994 which was allowed -2- C.W.P. No. 5015 of 2009. on 18.07.1995, however, liberty was granted to the workman to avail remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contends that the workman slept over the matter and thereafter preferred an S.L.P. before Hon'ble the Supreme Court which came to be decided on 28.01.2000, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-3. Referring to that, he contends that the said S.L.P. was moved alongwith an application for delay which shows that it was merely to cover up the delay that the S.L.P. was preferred by the workman. A perusal of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court does not reflect that the S.L.P. was dismissed on the question of delay. He, however, contends that although there is no limitation provided under the Industrial Disputes Act for bringing an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act but still the same should have been preferred within a reasonable time. He contends that the writ petition preferred by the management having been decided on 18.07.1995, the workman should have preferred an application at least within a period of three years from the date of such decision. This contention of counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the reason that the S.L.P. preferred by the workman came to be decided only on 28.01.2000, and thereafter, the workman has preferred the present application on 20.03.2001. In this view of factual position, it cannot be said that the application moved by the workman is moved after unreasonable delay and in any case after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2000, the application filed on 20.03.2001 can by no stretch of imagination be said to be delayed. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the said -3- C.W.P. No. 5015 of 2009. application has to be decided within a period of three months from the date of such application. He contends that for the delayed decision by the Labour Court, the management cannot be penalised as interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till the date of realisation has been passed against the petitioner-management. I have gone through the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Proviso thereto states that where the Presiding Officer 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. Counsel for the petitioner states that no reason whatsoever has been recorded by the Labour Court extending such period. He submits that the decision of the Court should not prejudice the right of any of the parties and how right he is. The Court has only balanced the equity between the parties. The workman as per his own application which he moved on 20.03.2001, would have entitled him to amount on 20.06.2001, which now he has been entitled to. The amount for which he was entitled to receive at that point has been utilised by the management for these long years. It is a settled proposition in law that the entitlement of a party has to be assessed from the date he makes such a claim. The workman had put in his claim in the year, 2001, for which he was entitled to in that very year and the same benefit has been granted by the Labour Court from the date of making such application before the Labour Court. Interest has been granted to the applicant to compensate the claimant which is fully justified. In any case, nothing has been placed on record by the management to show that no reasons have been recorded by the Labour Court while extending the period -4- C.W.P. No. 5015 of 2009. as provided under proviso to 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the period beyond three months was not actually extended by the Labour Court or no reasons were given therein. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 30, 2009. sjks. -5-