IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6362 of 2002 Date of decision:26.08.2009 Roshan Lal (deceased) through his L.Rs. ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1 Mr. J.P.Bhatt, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The order of the Labour Court came on an application filed under Section 33-C(2) made pursuant to a direction in a Civil Writ Petition No.4156 of 1982 that the workman could claim the monetary benefits by resort to an application before the Labour Court. The workman had been complaining that his termination by the management on 17.09.1982 passed by the Executive Officer, Malerkotla Municipal Committee, was illegal. The Court upheld the contention and also held that the workman was entitled to monetary benefits. Before the Labour Court, the workman had claimed Rs.2,00,732/- setting out the basis for two different periods from 17.09.1982 to 01.01.1986 in the scale of 300-450 and in the scale of 750-1350 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 onwards. The Civil Writ Petition No.6362 of 2002 - 2 - management contested the claim of the workman that the demand by the workman was vague and also contended that there had been no work done during the period and therefore, he was not entitled to any wages. 2. The Labour Court found that the workman had been drawing at the time of the alleged illegal termination, a salary of Rs.488.82 per month and calculated the same amount as applicable to him right through his service and taking into consideration that he would have retired in December, 1985, he was awarded Rs.77,967/- for 159 ½ months. 3. This order is challenged by the workman by stating after this Hon'ble Court directed that the workman was entitled to the monetary benefits but it had merely referred the party to go to the Labour Court, he was entitled to all the benefits which the employee would have got during the relevant period, applying the scales of pay that were admissible to a workman in that category. The learned counsel states that the order of the High Court, while setting aside the order of termination observed that he was entitled to all terminal benefits except the monetary benefits during the intervening period. The High Court was, therefore, not granting the monetary benefits. I am afraid that I am not able to accept such a construction as possible in view of the fact that in the succeeding line, the Court had also directed the party to approach the Labour Court for its monetary benefits under Section 33-C(2). A claim under Section 33-C(2) is really in the nature of execution and therefore, the very entitlement to the monetary benefits could never have been a point of adjudication before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2). Section 33-C(2) contemplates merely a case of computation of Civil Writ Petition No.6362 of 2002 - 3 - benefits and therefore, the order of the High Court must be construed merely as allowing for such computation to take place by an appropriate adjudication before the Labour Court. Obviously, there is a seeming inconsistency between the expression that the workman is entitled to all rights except the monetary benefits and the subsequent reference that the workman’s monetary benefits shall be adjudicated before the Labour Court. In the absence of any modification obtained in that order itself, by the management if there was some inconsistency by way of any review, I shall proceed on a harmonious construction of the words expressed in the judgment that the workman is entitled to the monetary benefits and extend him the benefit that he claimed in his petition. 4. The grounds stated in the writ petition of the petitioner was that even a witness for the management had admitted in the evidence that the scales of pay had been revised on 01.01.1986 from 300-450 to 750- 1350 and it was further admitted that the report of the Pay Commission as also the revision of pay scales ordered by the Punjab Government, were applicable to Municipal Committees. In my view, the Labour Court was wholly in error in looking for better particulars from the workman when he had already set out the basis of his claim. It was for the Municipal Committee, which was the public body, to prove that the workman was not entitled to the pay of scales which he was claiming. It is really not in the realm of conjecture but on clear-cut evidence which the management ought to have held in its possession. The scales of pay are not matters of secrecy; they are in the public domain and if the workman had referred to particular scales, the contention of the Civil Writ Petition No.6362 of 2002 -4 - management that the claim of the workman was vague, was clearly untenable. It was an evasive act on the part of the Municipal Committee to urge that the workman should have proved the scales of pay. He had done so by setting out the basis in is claim statement. 5. The order of the Labour Court taking the salary to be a fixed sum for all the 159 ½ months, is clearly erroneous. The order has been passed without reference to the evidence that was actually tendered before the Court. The workman was entitled to the amount as claimed by him and the order passed already is modified to admit the claim of the workman for the additional amount in excess of Rs.77,967/- to the amount as claimed by him and this excess shall bear interest at 9% from the date of his claim petition till the date of payment. 6. The order of the Labour Court is modified and the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.08.2009 sanjeev