IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6288 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 27, 2009. Sukhdev. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.S Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, vide which the reference made by the workman has been rejected on the merits as well as on the ground of delay. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-workman was senior to Raj Bala and Ram Kumar in service with the respondent- management. He contends that both of the juniors have been given initially 3/4th pay scale and thereafter full scale was granted to Ram Kumar without considering the claim of the workman. He further contends that this would amount to discrimination as the workman has been deprived of his right to the claim and therefore, the reference should have been answered in favour of the workman. He further contends that assuming there is a delay in making the demand by the workman as has been held by the Labour Court vide its impugned award, still the same could have been taken into C.W.P. No. 6288 of 2009. consideration for not granting him the back wages but his right could not have been curtailed only on the ground of delay. He further contends that the Labour Court has relied upon one document Mark 'A' Circular No. 772, dated 17.05.1984 which has not been proved on record to give a finding on merit against the workman. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. Perusal of the record would show that the workman is claiming the benefit which according to the reference accrued to him on 01.10.1987 i.e. the claim which has been made against Raj Bala with regard to grant of grade. The claim which has been made by the workman with regard to Ram Kumar would be w.e.f. 01.05.1989. The demand was raised by the workman, according to the Labour Court after a period of seven years. The Labour Court has thereafter relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Versus K.P. Madhavankutty and others, 2000 (1) S.C. 386 to hold that the claim as made by the workman was delayed and it cannot be said that it was a claim which subsists as it has been rendered stale by the time the said demand was made by the workman. No dispute, therefore, could have been said to be in existence when the reference was made to the Labour Court. Reference to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Transport Corporation Versus Babu Ram, 2006(5) S.C.C. 433, also needs to be made, where again Hon'ble the Supreme Court has reiterated the position with regard to the stale claims. This itself is a good ground for not answering the reference in favour of the workman. -2- C.W.P. No. 6288 of 2009. On merits as well as with regard to Ram Kumar, a finding has been recorded that the workman has failed to produce any evidence that Ram Kumar was junior to him and that he was not appointed in 3/4th scale on 01.05.1989 and the pay grade to Ram Kumar was not in accordance with circular No. 772, dated 17.05.1984 which according to counsel for the petitioner is only a marked document. This document being an official document which has not been disputed, has rightly been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. The claim with regard to same grade as regard to Raj Bala, again is fully justified for the reason that Raj Bala was granted 3/4th scale right from the date of her appointment on the basis of area which was given to her for cleaning, the management did not discriminate qua the workman whereas the work area of workman was less. It is an admitted position that the workman was performing the same work which Raj Bala was performing but the area which was being assigned for cleaning to the petitioner was much less than that of Raj Bala. That being the position, there is full justification for grant of 3/4th scale to Raj Bala which was as per circular No. 772, dated 17.05.1984 and otherwise also is justified as the work performed by the petitioner was much lessor than the work assigned to Raj Bala. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 27, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -3-