C.W.P. No. 15827 of 1989 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15827 of 1989 Date of Decision: Dec. 16,2010 Jaipal Bansal ................................................................. Petitioner Versus Market Committee, Jaito, District Faridkot, through its Administrator ........................................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.B.Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ... Ritu Bahri, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is for quashing the order of the Labour Court dated 26.10.1989 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') claiming difference of salary from 27.5.1982 to 26.7.1988 has been rejected. The petitioner was employed as Auction Clerk at Market Committee, Jaito, in 1982. One Gurdip Singh was working as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector in the said Market Committee. There were certain disciplinary proceedings against him and he was suspended. The C.W.P. No. 15827 of 1989 [ 2 ] petitioner was promoted as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector vide order of the Market Committee dated 27.5.1982 (Annexure P-1) till the suspension of Gurdip Singh. Later on, the petitioner was promoted as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector vide order dated 30.9.1982 (Annexure P-2) on temporary basis. Vide order dated 24.8.1983, he was promoted as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector with effect from 21.1.1983 on regular basis. His promotion was, however, subject to approval of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh. The pay scale of the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector was Rs.570-1080. The petitioner was being paid wages in the pay scale of Rs.450-800 with effect from 27.5.1982 to 26.7.1988. The petitioner's application claiming difference of salary under Section 33-C (2) of the Act has been rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and its function is not to compute the benefits that might be admissible to the workman. The extent of the liability for the salary claimed cannot be worked out in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Ms. Anjali Khosla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that there was no disputed question of facts which the Labour Court was sought to decide. The petitioner had been regularly promoted to the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector which fact has not been disputed by the Market Committee. Regular promotion by the Market Committee leaves no doubt that petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.570-1080. The Labour Court was not to decide the issue of promotion or the extent of liability of the Market Committee to pay the salary. Having worked on the higher post from 27.5.1982 to 26.7.1988 the petitioner is C.W.P. No. 15827 of 1989 [ 3 ] held entitled to the benefit of pay scale of the higher post. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Smt. P.Grover v. State of Haryana and another 1983 (3) SLR 473 was seized of a matter in which the petitioner was working on the post of District Education Officer on “an acting basis”. This issue once again came up before this Court in the case of Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab and another 1995 (2) AIJ 563. A Division Bench of this Court has allowed the claim of the petitioner having worked on the post of BDPO claiming equal pay for equal work. This principle has been followed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 7130-CAT of 2003. Since there was no dispute that the petitioner was regularly promoted on the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector, the award of the Labour Court dated 26.10.1989 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Direction is given to the respondents to calculate the difference of salary with effect from 27.5.1982 to 26.7.1988 and payment thereof be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing this writ petition. No order as to costs. 16.12.2010 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE