CWP No.14039 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14039 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: April 6, 2010 KARAM SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE SAIDKO CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE ...RESPONDENTS SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MS. SHIKHA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. VIKAS SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER. MR. ARUN JAIN, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. AMIT JAIN, ADCVOATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The workman has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for quashing the order of the Labour Court dated 24.1.1990 (Annexure P-4), whereby his application under Section 33(c) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') claiming revised pay scale was dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are the petitioner Karam Singh was serving a salesman on a salary of Rs.375/- per month with M/s Saidoke Co- op. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Saidoke. He had put in 2 years and 7 months of service when his services were terminated. He challenged his termination by filing a reference petition which was allowed by the Labour Court vide Annexure P-1, whereby the Labour Court held that the order of termination of service of the workman was illegal and accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service and full CWP No.14039 of 1990 -2- back wages. The petitioner filed application under Section 33(c)2 of the Act before the Labour Court, wherein he claimed revised pay scale. It was submitted that the pay scales of the salesman have been enhanced and therefore, he is entitled to the enhanced pay scales. The said application has been dismissed by the Labour Court vide Annexure P-4 by holding that application under Section 33(c)2 of the Act is in the nature of execution proceedings and the same does not involve the right of the workman and the workman cannot put forward the claim which was not part of the reference petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the file. A perusal of the order dated 15.7.1993, passed by the Presiding Officer, Pre-Lok Adalat shows that the counsel for the respondent- Management had made a statement that although the petitioner is not entitled to any amount more than what has been awarded by the Labour Court, yet as a gesture of goodwill, the Management was prepared to pay Rs.2000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court shows that the application was filed under Section 33(c)2 of the Act for execution of the award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner has already been reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. He is not entitled to claim higher/revised wages under Section 33(c)2 of the Act. Counsel for the respondent has already made a statement on 15.7.1993 that they are ready to pay Rs.2000/-. The aforementioned statement was made by the counsel for the respondent-Management on 15.7.1993. Keeping in view the totality of facts CWP No.14039 of 1990 -3- and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to pay the workman a sum of Rs.5000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner. April 6, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE