IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8428 of 1988. Date of Decision : January 16, 2009. Municipal Committee, Moga. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer and another. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). This petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 09.05.1988 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, wherein an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, preferred by the workman respondent No. 2 has been allowed and he has been granted the benefit by computing wages for the period he was under suspension from 27.03.1980 to 05.12.1980, medical leave wages from 19.03.1983 to 04.05.1984, and wages from 05.05.1984 to 31.11.1984. A perusal of the writ petition and the award impugned herein would show that the Court has proceeded to decide the matter on the assumption that the termination order is bad. The question raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the matter was covered by Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to compute the wages. It is not in dispute that Ex. M.2 was the notice issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation calling upon the C.W.P. No. 8428 of 1988. workman to report for duty within 30 days of the publication i.e. 15.03.1984, failing which the services of the workman respondent No. 2 would stand terminated w.e.f. the date of his absence i.e. 01.08.1983. The Labour Court has proceeded to decide the issue by holding that the workman has reported for duty within the time stipulated and therefore, presuming that the workman was continuing in service and on that basis has proceeded to hold that the order of termination is bad, and therefore, the workman is entitled to the computation of wages as claimed by him. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent has supported the award passed by the Labour Court by stating that the claim of the workman would fall within the ambit of Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the claim was maintainable in the present form and the objection raised by the Municipal Corporation with regard to the matter being covered under Section 10(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be correct. Counsel for the respondent relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of The Central Bank of India Limited Versus P.S. Rajagopalan etc., A.I.R. 1964 S.C 743, and Judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of A.P. Sankara Wariyar Versus The North Malabar Distt. Co-op. Supply and Marketing Society Limited, Calicut and another, 1982 (2) Labour Law Journal 440. The proposition as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court cannot be disputed but in the present case the question which needs to be decided is whether without setting aside of the order of termination, any benefit could be granted to the workman. The said order was very much in existence according to which as per the stand of the petitioners, the order -2- C.W.P. No. 8428 of 1988. still was holding the field and since the services of the workman stood terminated, the benefit which has been claimed by him, he would not be entitled unless said order is either set aside or is withdrawn. None of these two situations are present in this case. The basic order, therefore, which would decide the rights, was the order of termination whereon no adjudication has taken place which could be said to have settled the rights between the parties. The Labour Court in exercise of its authority under Section 33 C(2) is capable of computing the benefits which can be tabulated in the form of money but it cannot proceed on the assumption that a particular order as in this case, the order of termination, is either bad or not in accordance with law because that would not be the scope and jurisdiction of the Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It would not be out of way to mention here that while admitting the writ petition, this Court had ordered the present writ petition to be heard alongwith C.W.P. No. 5989 of 1988. The said writ petition also stands allowed vide order dated 10.12.1993 where again similar question was decided by this Court. That being so, the present writ petition deserves to succeed, and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 09.05.1988 (Annexure- P-2), passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, is hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 16,2009. sjks. -3-