C.M. No. 12844 of 2009 and 1 CWP No. 5660 of 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 12844 of 2009 and CWP No. 5660 of 1989 Date of decision August 3, 2009 Municipality Bareta through its Executive Officer ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhatinda and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J(oral). C.M. No. 12844 of 2009 The application is to restore back the writ petition which was dismissed in default for reasons stated in the petition. C.M. is allowed. Writ petition is restored back to its original number and is being taken up for final hearing today itself. CWP No. 5660 of 1989 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court in an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming wages w.e.f. 28.11.1979 onwards on the plea that the applicant-workman had been appointed as a Clerk on duty but the respondent was paying him wages only as a peon. C.M. No. 12844 of 2009 and 2 CWP No. 5660 of 1989 2. The contention on behalf of the Municipality was that sanction for the appointment came later from the Government only on 10.7.1984 and that he could not be paid wages from the year 1979 itself. The Municipality set out a case that the appointment was made only on 20.12.1984 subsequent to sanction and he held a post of a Clerk on 1.3.1985 and again re-employed as a Clerk on 4.3.1985 which post he held up to 1.1.1987. While considering the defence of the Municipality, the Labour Court found on evidence that the workman had been always working as a Clerk ever since 28.11.1979 and he also brought out through the admission of a witness examined on the side of the Management that the Municipality took work of the Clerk from the workman although he was appointed as a peon. He also referred to the fact that two posts of Clerk had been lying vacant in the year 1979 when resolution had been passed by the Municipality for appointing him as a Clerk relaxing the condition of minimum educational qualification. These admissions, as per reasoning of the Labour Court, were beyond dispute. 3. Under the circumstances, the directions given by the Labour Court for payment of dues calculated on the basis that he has worked as a Clerk w.e.f 28.11.1979 cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although initially an order of stay had been granted, it was later vacated but he was unable to confirm whether the amount as ordered had been paid. He pleads that if the amount has been paid, it need not be refunded; but if it has not been paid, the direction shall be restricted only to the particular dates when officially he could have held the post as a Clerk that came subsequent to the sanction from the Government. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that application under Section 33-C (2) cannot be made without a proper adjudication relating to the entitlement and places reliance on two C.M. No. 12844 of 2009 and 3 CWP No. 5660 of 1989 judgments i.e. H.P. States Electricity Board and another Vs. Ranjeet Singh and others (2008) 4 SCC 241 and D. Krishnan and another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and another (2008) 7 SCC 22 . Reliance on these judgments especially in a case where there is a clear finding that the Management witness himself had admitted to the officiation of the workman in a higher post as a Clerk is unnecessary. The former case related to dispute relating to the status of the claimant as workman. The latter related to a dispute relating to claim for bonus. Both could not be dealt with under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, the workman's status and his officiation as Clerk are admitted facts in the case. It has also been held in a decision of the Supreme Court in Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1976) 3 SCC 93 that merely because there are some disputes raised by the Management to entitlement of the workman, it will not take away the power of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a contention of the petitioner is rejected. 5. For the reasons adverted to by the Labour Court which I am in full agreement with, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 3, 2009 archana