LPA No. 210 of 2011 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 22.11.2011 1. LPA No. 210 of 2011(O&M) Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ...... Appellant Versus Jagdish & others ...... Respondents 2. LPA No. 189 of 2011 (O&M) Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ...... Appellant Versus Parsu Ram & another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present : Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellant(s). **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 210 & 189 of 2011, arising out of an order passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) directing the respondent management to pay wages according to the pay scale granted to similarly situated workmen by the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad from the date of issuance of their LPA No. 210 of 2011 -2- appointment letters on regular basis. The finding of the Labour Court is that the right to such revised pay scales was a pre-existing right executable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act as ‘money due’. The learned Single Judge held that since the workman who had been appointed at the time when regular employees had gone on strike and were withholding their labour on the return of old employees the new workmen had not been terminated and were continuing as such, they had a right to receive their wages at par as a pre-existing right. The Appellant Municipal Corporation, Faridabad in the writ petition had relied upon an interim order dated 9.1.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Kailashi and Anr. There was stay of operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court in that case. That interim order was relied upon as Annexure P-2 to press for stay in this matter. In view of reliance on Annexure P-2 this Court passed an interim order dated 28.3.2011 as follows:- “Learned counsel for the appellant to inform the Court, on the next date fixed, whether the order under challenge before the Apex Court (Annexure P2) has been passed by the High Court under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded before us that the interim order dated 9.1.2008 (P-2) stands culminated in the final order dated 24.7.2011, whereby the SLP stands dismissed and the interim order dated 9.1.2008 granting ex parte stay in that case stands vacated. 3. Ms. Balwinder Kaur, learned counsel for the appellant has informed us at the outset that the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also involved proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. LPA No. 210 of 2011 -3- 4. In view of the above, nothing remains to be decided, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The order of the Learned Single Judge is upheld. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE JUDGE November 22, 2011 ‘sp’