CWP No.7120 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7120 OF 1990 Date of decision: 08.11.2011 Municipal Committee, Mansa ...Petitioner Versus Labour Court Bhatinda through its Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.L.Sarin, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.7119, 7120 of 1990, 284 and 285 of 1991. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7119, 7120, 8117, 9047, 12407 of 1990, 284, 285, 9190 and 9192 of 1991. Facts have been taken from CWP No.7120 of 1990. 2. The petitioner – Municipal Committee, Mansa has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned order dated 17.1.1990, Annexure P.3 passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, whereby an application filed by the respondents under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, “the Act”) claiming wages in lieu of gazetted holidays during the years 1986 to 1988 with the plea that they had worked during those gazetted holidays, has been accepted by the Labour Court. 1 CWP No.7120 of 1990 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Sub section (1) of Section 7A of the Act, the appropriate Government is empowered to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for adjudicating the industrial disputes relating to matters which are specified in Second Schedule or Third Schedule and also for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. According to the learned counsel, the claim of the workmen fell in Third Schedule of the Act and, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal could have decided the matter relating to leave with wages and holidays whereas the Labour Court had exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in it. It was, therefore, urged that the order dated 17.1.1990 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The claim of the respondents was also disputed on merits as well. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Entry 4 in the Third Schedule which is to be following effect:- “4. Leave with wages and holidays;” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Labour Court. 6. A reading of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court shows that in the reply, a specific plea had been raised by the Municipal Committee that the claim made by the claimants did not fall under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Further, a perusal of the order clearly shows that in para 7 thereof, the Labour Court had recorded the contention of the representative of the petitioner-management but from the order, it is discerned that there is no discussion with regard to this point by the Labour Court, while passing the order impugned herein. In such a situation, it is 2 CWP No.7120 of 1990 considered appropriate to set aside the order and remit the case back to the Labour Court to decide afresh after hearing the parties. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure P.3 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court to decide afresh in accordance with law. All the petitions are disposed of. November 08, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3 CWP No.7120 of 1990 4