C.W.P No. 3584 of 1990 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3584 of 1990 Date of decision : December 06, 2010 Municipal Corporation Ludhiana ...... Petitioner v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and others ...... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 8. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award (Annexure P-2). The private respondents claimed the benefit of a special increment on the ground that they had not gone on strike on 8.2.1978 and were, thus, entitled to the said benefit. The petitioner relied upon clause (ii) of the letter dated C.W.P No. 3584 of 1990 ::2:: 6.10.1986 whereby it was decided to grant benefit to those employees who did not participate in the strike on 8.2.1978. Clause (ii) reads thus :- “ (ii) No benefit of premature increment is to be given to the employees who were on casual leave/earned leave/maternity leave or leave of any other kind of weekly rest on 8.2.1978 when a section of the employees went on strike.” The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner had discriminated between the different sets of workmen. Benefit had been given to those workmen who were on weekly rest on 8.2.1978 but was denied to the private respondents on the ground that they were on earned leave. The Labour Court further found that it would have been a different situation altogether if the benefit had been denied even to those workmen who were on weekly rest as per condition (ii) mentioned above. However, since it was not done, the entitlement of the private respondents could not be denied. In my opinion, there is no error or infirmity in the impugned award and consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 06, 2010. JUDGE `kk'