CWP No. 2423 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2423 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.02.2010 Punjab State Electricity Board ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Buta Ram c/o Sh. Subhash Dhawan and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for short 'the Act') by respondent No. 1-workman has been allowed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that against the Award CWP No. 2423 of 2010 2 dated 21.01.1999 passed in favour of respondent No.1-workman, the petitioner had preferred CWP No. 65 of 2000 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Buta Ram and another, which has been admitted by this Court. He submits that although no stay has been granted but during the pendency of the writ petition, the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act would not be maintainable. He contends that he has a remedy under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which has not been availed by him, and, therefore, the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act would not have been entertained by the Labour Court. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Mere pendency of the writ petition in the High Court challenging an Award in favour of the workman would not have the effect of staying further proceedings as a consequence thereof, unless the stay is granted by the High Court. It is an admitted position that no stay was granted by this Court while admitting CWP No. 65 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner. No doubt remedy under Section 33-C (1) of the Act was available to the workman but that does not debar his claim under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. In the application under Section 33 -C (2) of the Act, the workman has only claimed 50% back wages from 03.06.1989 to 21.11.1999, which is in accordance with the Award passed by the Labour Court. The Court below has, on consideration of the evidence produced by respondent No. 1-workman and the Management, proceeded to decide the said application and granted the benefit of 50% back wages for the period 03.06.1989 to 11.11.1999, which was granted to the workman vide Award dated 21.01.1999. No illegality has been committed by the Labour Court while passing the Award. In any case, the Labour Court has, in its order, CWP No. 2423 of 2010 3 stated that the amount computed through the order passed by the Labour court on 30.10.2008, which is under challenge in the present case, would be subject to variations and adjustment as per final orders passed by the High Court passed in CWP No. 65 of 2000. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner which would call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 11, 2010 pj CWP No. 2423 of 2010 4