Civil Writ Petition No.6312 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.6312 of 1988 Date of Decision:15.12.2008 Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda .....Petitioner Vs. Labour Court, Bhatinda and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 30. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 8.3.1988 Anexure P.5. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 29.1.1982, the petitioner passed a resolution to the effect that winter uniforms be given to the employees of the Municipal Committee according to law. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary to Government Punjab, Local Government Department, Punjab, Chandigarh directed the petitioner – Committee vide letter dated 8.3.1982 not to supply the uniforms to the employees, who have no corresponding posts existing in the State Government Departments with the specific mention that the Moharrirs of the Committee are not entitled to the supply of uniforms. In view of the instructions Annexures P.1 and P.3, the uniforms could not be supplied to respondents No.2 to 30 as they were Civil Writ Petition No.6312 of 1988 -2- not entitled to have the same. These respondents made an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, `the Act') claiming price of the uniforms from the petitioner. The same was allowed vide impugned order, which is liable to be quashed in view of the reasons embodied in this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda with due care and circumspection. Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner maintained with great vigour that in view of the government instructions, the uniforms could not be supplied to respondents No.2 to 30 and that being so, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. To controvert this submission, Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate representing respondents No.2 to 30 pressed into service that the impugned award has been implemented as the payment has been made to the contesting respondents and furthermore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. I have well considered the rival contentions. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda has observed in the impugned order as under:- “The contention of the representative of the workman is that the benefit was withdrawn in violation of Section 9(A) of the Act, inasmuch as, no notice was served upon the effected workmen before withdrawing the benefit. This fact has been conceded by Joginder Singh Executive Officer of the respondent municipality who also admitted that before the receipt of the Civil Writ Petition No.6312 of 1988 -3- circular, copy of which is Ex.M/1, the Municipality used to supply the uniforms to the workmen. He could not contradict the suggestion that the workmen were getting the uniforms of the value claimed in their applications. One of the workman namely Dina Nath had deposed to the effect that he and the other applicants had been receiving from the respondent Municipality uniforms till 1979. It is thus established beyond any manner of doubt, that the benefit of uniform was applicable to the workmen for a long period and it was withdrawn in violation of Section 9(A) of the Act. The calculations of the dues made by the workmen in the applications has not been challenged by the management. I, therefore, accept all the applications to the extent of the amount claimed and hold that each of the applicant is entitled to receive from the respondent, the amount claimed and indicated above. The respondent will also pay to each workman costs of these proceedings quantified at Rs.100/-.” To my mind, no view contrary to the above findings can be taken as these are based on documentary evidence apart from law. Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere therewith, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. As such, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. December 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No