L.P.A. No. 986 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 986 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.08.2010 State Bank of India -----Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ---Respondents L.P.A. No. 987 of 2010 (O&M) State Bank of India -----Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ---Respondents L.P.A. No. 988 of 2010 (O&M) State Bank of India -----Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of three appeals filed by State Bank of India under Clause X of the Letters Patent because all the appeals emerge from a common order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 16529 of 2009 and other two petitions. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the award passed by the Labour Court on 17.03.2009 is based on the agreement of the parties. During the pendency of the reference, permission was granted to the appellant- bank to finalize the departmental enquiry against the workman- respondent No.3, which was pending against him before the Central Government Industrial -cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh which eventually led to passing of an order of removal on 21.04.2009 L.P.A. No. 986 of 2010 (O&M) -2- (Annexure P-3). The appeal filed by the workman-respondent No.3 was also rejected by the appellate authority. It is also pertinent to mention that the workman-respondent No.3 had initiated proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, which are pending for adjudication. The appellant-Bank has argued that the workman-respondent No.3 would not be entitled to additional benefit, which have been claimed in the application, keeping in view the order of removal. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the maintainability of the proceedings by the workman under Section 33-C (2) as also before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh for the reasons that the workman has claimed much more than he is entitled to under the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, it has been prayed that proceedings be set aside. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended on behalf of the workman that the claim is based on the award and not beyond. It was further contended that the appellant-bank, if so desire, could contest the same before the appropriate forum. The learned Single after recording the aforesaid controversy has ordered that the appellant-bank be permitted to raise all the pleas before the competent authority where the claims have been lodged by the workman-respondent No.3. The competent authority is to consider the claims/ counter claims and decide the same in accordance with law. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that once the proceedings are not competent then it would be against the interest of justice to permit their continuation and L.P.A. No. 986 of 2010 (O&M) -3- this Court must interfere by setting aside those proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even contempt proceedings have been initiated despite the fact that as per the agreed award, huge amount has been disbursed to the workman-respondent No.3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity because it cannot be presumed that the proceedings initiated by the workman-respondent No.3 under Section 33-C(2) are going to be finalized in a particular manner. It is not possible to accept the contention that the workman- respondent No.3 has claimed much more than what has been granted by the agreed award. To make a claim, is one thing and to accept the same, is quite another thing. We cannot pre-judge the issue, which is subject matter of adjudication before the available legal forum. Therefore, we approve the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is, thus, no merit in these appeals. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 19, 2010 Atul