C.W.P.No.5276 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5276 of 1993 Date of Decision:28.11.2011 State of Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak ...Petitioner Vs. Om Parkash Safai Karamchari & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner-management. Mr.Mohan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, which would be relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the name of Om Parkash workman-respondent No.1 (for brevity “the workman”) was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was appointed on daily wages as whole time Sweeper in the workshop of petitioner-management of Haryana Roadways, Rohtak (for short “the petitioner-management), by means of office order No.2485/EA/RK dated 31.7.1981 (Annexure P1). He worked as such for many years and moved an application, claiming the computation of money/benefits on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' w.e.f. 1.1.1985 to 30.6.1989, invoking the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The petitioner-management filed the reply, refuted the claim of workman, denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (in short “the LC”) held that C.W.P.No.5276 of 1993 -2- the workman is entitled to and directed the petitioner-management to pay him the amount in question w.e.f. 1.5.1986 to 30.6.1989 as difference of pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', by virtue of impugned award dated 2.1.1992 (Annexure P2). 4. Instead of making the payment of awarded amount, the petitioner- management did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, perhaps by spending much more than the awarded amount, challenging the impugned award (Annexure P2), under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the contention of learned State counsel that since the workman was not entitled to the difference of pay on the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', so, the LC committed a legal mistake in awarding the indicated amount, lacks merit. 7. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the name of workman was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He was appointed on the post as whole time Sweeper, vide appointment letter (Annexure P1) and continued to work for many years with the petitioner-management. 8. What cannot possibly be disputed here, which is also noticed by the LC, is that the workman had earlier filed the similar application for recovery of arrears of difference of pay of wages w.e.f. 1.1.1982 to 30.4.1986 on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which was allowed by the LC, by way of order dated 29.10.1987. The petitioner-management has already paid the awarded amount, in pursuance of previous order of LC. Once the petitioner-management has accepted the entitlement of workman and paid the arrears, in lieu of difference C.W.P.No.5276 of 1993 -3- of wages from 1.1.1982 to 30.4.1986, in that eventuality, it is estopped from denying the same very benefit to him in respect of subsequent period. Therefore, to me, the LC has rightly accepted the indicated claim of workman in this relevant connection. 9. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. An identical matter came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court, by way of order dated 11.11.1992 (Annexure R1/1) in C.W.P. No.14766 of 1992 titled as “Power Thermal Plant Vs. Presiding Officer and others” and it was ruled as under:- “It is not disputed that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days regularly, though it is claimed that he was a daily wager on contract basis. It is well known in Labour Law that if the workman has completed 240 days, he will be deemed to be a regular employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, and will be entitled to equal pay for equal work i.e. entitled to the emoluments which are being paid to the similarly situated persons doing the same work. Even assuming though not accepting the orders passed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to be illegal, irregular or without jurisdiction, we do not find it a fit case to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction for the reason that respondent- workman cannot be denied equal pay for equal work and he cannot be forced to litigate or get involved in multiplicity of proceedings in order to get his dues. Since substantial justice has been done to the workman, we find no ground to interfere. Dismissed.” The aforesaid observations “mutatis mutandis” are applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. Sequelly, the learned State counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned award of LC is illegal and would invite any interference. 11. Meaning thereby, the LC has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction in the impugned award. Such award, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited C.W.P.No.5276 of 1993 -4- jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State counsel, so, the impugned award deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No