Letters Patent Appeal No.1644 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1644 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Baldev Singh ...Appellant Versus General Manager and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the management against order of the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed application of the appellant under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 upholding the claim for arrears of increments. The appellant was employed as conductor in Punjab Roadways and was charge sheeted for misconduct. After due enquiry, punishment of stoppage of increments was imposed. The said order was never challenged by the workman but application was moved under under 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The same was contested, inter-alia, on the ground of maintainability. The Labour Court, however, upheld the claim of the workman and directed payment of arrears of increments ignoring order of punishment. The management challenged the order of the Labour Court, inter-alia, on the ground that scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act was limited to execution of an existing right and Letters Patent Appeal No.1644 of 2011 -2- **** not adjudication of a disputed claim. It was further submitted that punishment of stoppage of increments having been imposed which was never challenged, claim for arrears was not made out. Learned Single Judge accepted the stand of the management relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Raja Gopalan AIR 1964 S.C.743 and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Workman AIR 1974 S.C. 1604. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is clear that the order of imposition of punishment of stoppage of increments was never challenged by the workman. The claim of the workman was, thus, based on a disputed plea which was beyond the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act as rightly held by the learned Single Judge following the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. cases (supra). We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice September 07, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge