C.W.P No.12963 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.12963 of 1990 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 2. C.W.P. No.3745 of 1992 3. C.W.P. No.3746 of 1992 4. C.W.P. No.3747 of 1992 5. C.W.P. No.3748 of 1992 The Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the respondents. 6. C.W.P. No.6051 of 1987 Tasbir Singh and others .......Petitioners Versus The Haryana State Federation of Central Cooperative Wholesale Consumers Stores Ltd. .....Respondent Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. 7. C.W.P. No.5447 of 1992 Virender Singh Salesman ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents C.W.P No.12963 of 1990 -2- 8. C.W.P. No.6076 of 1994 Braham Parkash, Salesman ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) I. C.W.P. No.6051 of 1987, 5447 of 1992 and 6076 of 1994 1. This batch of writ petitions are taken up together as the same issue of tenability of the orders passed by the Labour Court on applications filed under Section 33-C(2) by workmen, who claimed to be Salesmen employed with Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd is required to be considered. Their claims were on the basis that when they were originally ordered to be appointed by a communication of the State Federation, they were assured that they shall be put on regular scales of pay. Subsequently after two months by yet another communication, the same classes of persons had been directed to join the duty at a fixed salary of Rs.250/-, while still affording to another section of sales persons a regular scale of pay. The persons, who had accepted the fixed scale of pay later complained that they cannot be discriminated and after all, they were C.W.P No.12963 of 1990 -3- doing the same job as the other salesmen who had regular scales applied to them. 2. On the principle of equal pay for equal work, they had applied under Section 33-C(2) complaining that they were entitled to be paid the same salary as was paid to workmen who had been granted regular scales of pay. The objection from the State Federation was that without prior adjudication that they were entitled to be paid the same salary as other salesmen, who had been put on regular scales, the proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2), which were in the nature of execution ought not to have been entertained. 3. The Labour Court considered the objections but taking note of the fact that the very same workmen who had been initially informed of being put on regular scales but later permitted to be joined on a fixed salary, it reasoned that there was no basis for making such invidious distinction and the differential wages were found to be against the constitutional norms under the Directive Principles of State Policy. It found that there was really no dispute which could have been referred to adjudication under Section 10 and what the workmen were claiming were the scales of pay which had been originally offered but later withdrawn and a fixed salary given to one class of workmen who are performing the very same duties but to another class higher scales of pay had been provided. The Labour Court, therefore, allowed the applications and granted to them the reliefs as claimed by the workmen. The order of the Labour Court cannot be found fault with and there is no justification for interfering C.W.P No.12963 of 1990 -4- with the order passed by the Labour Court. 4. All the above writ petitions are allowed. II. C.W.P Nos.12963 of 1990 & 3745 to 3748 of 1992 5. These writ petitions are filed at the instance of the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court at Rohtak admitting the claims of the workmen that they were entitled to be treated on par with the Helpers doing the same duties and sharing the same responsibilities who were paid salary on a regular scale of pay while they were all being paid consolidated amounts. The challenge to the order in the writ petitions is that without a prior adjudication relating to their entitlement to equal pay for equal work, the petitions could not have been entertained under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court. The orders according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are, therefore, without justification. 6. Even before the Labour Court, the same contention had been taken but the Labour Court had adverted to the point that admittedly all of them were working in the same post as Helpers and the management had not explained anywhere as to how only some persons had been employed on daily-rate basis and under what circumstances, it became possible for them to offer regular scales to Helpers and at the same time denying to another group of Helpers the benefits which were given to the class that were being paid regular scales. With no explanation coming from the State Federation, the Labour Court fell justified to admit the claims of the workmen and C.W.P No.12963 of 1990 -5- given to them regular scales in the manner that other Helpers were getting. 7. To the objection regarding the so-called schedule operating against the workmen, who after receiving the orders to work on a consolidated sum, could not have asked for regular scales, the Labour Court reasoned that the claim was on the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work and recognized by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Labour Court has passed an order under the circumstances which was justified and substantial justice has been done that calls for no interference in writ petition. 8. The writ petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 03, 2009 Pankaj*