IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8833 of 2001 Date of Decision: 14.7.2010 Balkar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.T. Chandigarh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate with Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner who retired as Driver from the State Institute of Education, Sector-32, Chandigarh, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the award dated 19.12.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Labour Court, vide which the claim of the petitioner for overtime allowance stand declined. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming overtime allowance, in view of the order/judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing the petition filed by the petitioner alongwith one other employee claiming equal pay for equal work with that of the driver employed by Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. The contention raised by the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that the petitioners were not performing the same duties as that of drivers of Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal did not accept this stand and ordered that the petitioner was performing the same duties as that of CWP No. 8833 of 2001 -2- the Drivers of the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and was employee of the same employer, therefore, was entitled to equal pay for equal work. The pay of the petitioner and another was liable to be fixed in the grade payable to the Drivers of the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. The petitioner was also held entitled to all other allowances. The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) was allowed exparte, and an order was passed granting the benefit to the petitioner, and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.36,000/- i.e. inclusive of the income-tax deducted at source. The exparte award passed by the learned Labour Court was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was allowed and, exparte award was set aside. This Court however restrained the respondents, from recovering the amount which was still to be deducted, till the final disposal by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has retired from the service does not want to press this petition on merits to claim the overtime allowance, but prays that the amount already recovered from the petitioner which was paid under the order of the Labour Court be refunded to him, as the said amount was not paid to the petitioner on his mis-representation but under the award of the Labour Court, which cannot be recovered. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed off, by giving the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent for refund of the amount deducted from the petitioner, which was paid under the orders of a competent Court as the amount was not paid to the petitioner on any mis-representation. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty CWP No. 8833 of 2001 -3- is granted to the petitioner to make a representation for refund of the amount recovered from the petitioner and if any such representation which is made, it should be considered sympathetically, in view of the facts and circumstances stated here-in-above, and disposed off preferably within three months of receipt of representation if any. July 14, 2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) rishu JUDGE