LPA No. 721 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 721 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.03.2011 Santro Devi and others ......APPELLANTS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** RANJAN GOGOI, CJ (Oral) With the consent of the parties, the final orders in the appeal are being passed at this stage. The challenge herein is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2009 passed in CWP No.18412 of 2002 by which certain modifications in an Award dated 22.1.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Panipat has been ordered. The learned Single Judge, while maintaining the Award insofar as the higher pay scale to the workmen is concerned, has modified the same by requiring the respondent-Writ Petitioner-College to seek approval of the AICTE with regard to the designation of the post of Laboratory Attendants. LPA No. 721 of 2010 2 The brief facts that will be required to be noticed may now be set out. The appellants-workmen were appointed as Peons-cum- Attendants on a pay scale of ` 750-940/- in the C.R. State College of Engineering, Murthal, District Sonepat. A dispute between the appellants- workmen and the Management arose with regard to their entitlement to the scale of pay of Lab Attendants which was referred to the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court recorded the finding that though designated as Peons-cum-Attendants, the workmen were performing the duties of the Lab Attendants. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned Award directing for the re-designation of the workmen as Lab Attendants and for payment of the higher scale of pay to them i.e. ` 950-1500/- (pre-revised). Aggrieved by the said Award of the learned Labour Court, the Management instituted the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that on the basis of the evidence tendered by the Management itself, particularly, by the Foreman examined by the Management, it clearly transpired that the workmen were performing the duties of Lab Attendants and, therefore, they were entitled to the higher pay scale. However, the learned Single Judge also took the view that the Award of the Labour Court for re- designating the workmen as Lab Attendants amounted to a review of the cadre strength of Lab Attendants which was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge left it open to the Management to retain the workmen in the cadre of Peons-cum- Attendants with the option to make an appropriate representation to the AICTE for proper re-designation. Independent of the said order, the LPA No. 721 of 2010 3 learned Single Judge also directed the Government to consider the feasibility of increasing the present strength of the Lab Attendants so as to conform to the AICTE norms. The writ petition was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge by directing the payment of a higher scale of pay i.e. i.e. ` 950-1500/- up to the date of the order of the Labour Court. The aforesaid reduction of the period of their entitlement i.e. up to the date of the order of the Labour Court is the only challenge in the present appeal. We have considered the materials on record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The terms of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court have already been noticed. Though the Award was under challenge in the writ petition filed in the absence of any interim order, the Award remained operational during the pendency of the writ petition. In such a situation, it is inconceivable as to how the workmen could have been put in the lower cadre of Peons-cum- Attendants carrying a lower scale of pay. It is also doubtful as to how any service condition of the workmen could have been affected by the Management when the Award of the Industrial Adjudicator was otherwise. That apart, no material had been laid before the learned Single Judge and no such material has also been laid before us to show that subsequent to the Award, the workmen concerned were employed as Peons-cum- Attendants. If that be so, we do not see how the learned Single Judge could have curtailed the benefit of higher pay scale to the workmen up to the date of the order of the Labour Court. If the appellants-workmen had been working as Laboratory Attendants and there is no material before us to take a contrary view, they would certainly be entitled to the payment of higher pay scale up to the date of service rendered. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as the direction for LPA No. 721 of 2010 4 payment of higher scale of pay up to the date of Award is concerned and direct that such higher scale of pay be tendered to the workmen for the period they have rendered service or if they have been rendering service on date as Lab Attendants. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in terms of the above. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 14, 2011 pj