C.W.P.No.4509 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4509 of 1993 Date of Decision:23.11.2011 General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak ...Petitioner Vs. Bhagwan Dass & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner-management. Nemo for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the name of workman Bhagwan Dass-respondent No.1 (for brevity “the workman”) was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was appointed on daily wages, as whole time Sweeper in the workshop of petitioner-management of Haryana Roadways (for short “the management”), by virtue of appointment letter dated 31.7.1981 (Annexure P1). He worked as such and ultimately, his services were regularized with immediate effect, by way of office order dated 6.12.1993 (Annexure R1). The workman claimed that although the management has paid the amount of difference of wages, in view of computation of benefits on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” till 30.4.1986, but thereafter, it did not pay the amount in this relevant connection. It necessitated the workman to file a petition under Section 33-C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim the indicated benefits. 2. The management filed the reply, refuted the claim of workman, denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. C.W.P.No.4509 of 1993 -2- After considering the entire material on record, the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (in short “the LC”) held that the workman is entitled to and directed the management to pay him a sum of ` 4644.85P as difference of pay w.e.f. 1.5.1986 to 14.5.1987, by means of impugned award dated 8.4.1992 (Annexure P2). 3. Instead of making the payment of awarded amount, the management of Haryana Roadways did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, perhaps by spending much more that awarded amount, challenging the impugned award (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned State counsel for petitioner-management, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this context. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned State counsel that since the workman was not entitled to the amount in question in lieu of difference/computation of pay, so, the LC committed a legal mistake in this respect, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that, having sponsored the name by the Employment Exchange, the workman was appointed on the post of whole time Sweeper, vide appointment letter (Annexure P1). He continued working as such and ultimately, his services were regularized with immediate effect by the management, by virtue of office order (Annexure R1). The LC noticed that the workman has earlier filed the similar application, claiming the arrears of difference of wages w.e.f. 1.1.1982 to 30.4.1986 on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which was allowed by the LC. Admittedly, the earlier order had attained the finality. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that the management had already paid the C.W.P.No.4509 of 1993 -3- amount of difference of wages from 1.1.1982 to 30.4.1986 to the workman, but it did not pay the difference of wages of subsequent period. Once the management has accepted the entitlement of workman and paid the arrears, in lieu of difference of wages from 1.1.1982 to 30.4.1986, in that eventuality, it is estopped from denying the same very benefit to him in respect of subsequent period. Therefore, to me, the LC has rightly accepted the indicated claim of workman w.e.f. 1.5.1986 to 14.5.1987 in this relevant connection. 8. At the same time, the learned State counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, to show as to how and in what manner, the impugned award of LC is illegal and would invite any interference. 9. Meaning thereby, the LC has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction in the impugned award. Such award, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State counsel, so, the impugned award deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the State counsel. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 23.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No