IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 2, 2010 1. L.P.A. No. 1429 of 2010 (O&M) The Sikh Educational Society and another …Appellants Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and others …Respondents 2. L.P.A. No. 1442 of 2010 (O&M) The Sikh Educational Society and another …Appellants Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the appellant(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 1429 and 1442 of 2010, as both the appeals are directed against one common order dated 27.8.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of petitions. The question of law raised is whether the wages of workmen could be reduced without complying with the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act’), which imposes an obligation to issue a notice before taking any such step. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as also the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is that there was patent L.P.A. Nos. 1429 & 1442 of 2010 (O&M) violation of Section 9-A of the Act and accordingly the Tribunal had rightly set aside the resolution passed by the appellants because it amounting to change of service conditions, inasmuch as, the wages paid to the workmen were ordered to be reduced. 2. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contention that the workmen-respondents were not entitled to equal pay for equal work because there was no such claim made by them. In fact, they were granted the wages equal to the employees working on aided posts but later on the aforesaid decision was sought to be withdrawn. The workmen-respondents were also granted the benefit of merging 50% of the Dearness Allowance in their basic pay and the contention raised was that such a relief could not have been given to the workmen-respondents who were working on a post which did not receive any aid from the Government. It was not disputed that the workmen-respondents have been otherwise working and were being paid the same amount as their counterparts working on the aided posts. 3. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. There is patent violation of Section 9-A of the Act as even a show cause notice was not given to the workmen-respondents before reducing their pay by withdrawing the benefit of merging of 50% of Dearness Allowance in their basic pay. There is, thus, no merit in these appeals warranting admission. Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 L.P.A. Nos. 1429 & 1442 of 2010 (O&M) (RITU BAHRI) November 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3