Dismissed

Rattan Lal v. the Executive Engnineer Hppwd

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2022CWP/1949/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that rejected the petitioner's claim for equal pay for equal work. The Court held the award was not perverse as evidence, including a certificate, proved the petitioner worked as a beldar, not a Supervisor/Inspector.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Rattan Lal Vs the Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1949 of 2012 Reserved on: 24.11.2022 Decided on: 09.12.2022 __________________________________________________________ Rattan Lal ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Shimla

¶5

… Respondent

¶6

_________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶7

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶8

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶9

______________________ For the petitioner	________________ : Mr. C.N. Si	_____ ngh,	_________ Advocate.	__
For the respondent:	Mr. Desh A.G. with	Raj Mr.	Thakur, Manoj	Addl. Singh
	Bagga, General.	Asst	t. Ad	vocate

¶10

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶11

By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed award dated 15.01.2010 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 147 of 2002, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

¶12

Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by alleging that though the respondent had taken the work of Supervisor/Inspector from petitioner, but he

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

was paid only the wages of Beldar. Thus, the petitioner claimed equal pay for equal work. He further alleged that his juniors were promoted/appointed as Inspector/ Supervisor by wrongfully ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

¶16

The appropriate Government made the following reference for adjudication of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short, ‘the Tribunal’):-

¶17

“िक �ा �ी रतन लाल सुपु� �ी खीवन राम कामगार एवं सिचव लोक िनमा�ण मजदूर एकता यूिनयन, िशमला �ारा मांग प� िदनांक 27.07.99 व 26.06.99 (�ितयाँ सलंगन) �ारा अिधशासी अिभय�ा, िहमाचल �देश लोक िनमा�ण िवभाग मंडल न. 1, िशमला -1 से जून 1994 से लेकर काय� अनुसार वक� इ��े�र की वेतन की मांग की जाना उिचत एवं �ाय संगत ह�? अगर हाँ, तो �ी रतन लाल सुपु� �ी खीवन राम कामगार िकस पद ,वेतन एवं राहत का पा� ह� ?”

¶18

Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner

¶19

submitted his claim petition claiming inter alia equal pay for equal work on the premise that he had worked as Supervisor/Inspector. Further relief of appointment

¶20

¶21

as Inspector/ Supervisor was sought since August, 1995 when his juniors allegedly were promoted to the said post. He further prayed for his regularization on the post of Inspector/Supervisor on completion of eight years.

¶22

The respondent contested the claim of petitioner before learned Tribunal. It was specifically denied that petitioner had ever worked as Supervisor/ Inspector. As per respondent, there was no post of Inspector in the HPPWD. As regards the persons with whom petitioner had sought parity, it was submitted that their names found mention in the muster-rolls of Supervisor, whereas the petitioner was engaged as Beldar since beginning and was never deputed to work as Supervisor.

¶23

On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶24

1. Whether the demand of the petitioner to claim the pay of work inspector from June, 1994 is justified? If so, its effect?...OPP

¶25

¶26

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?..OPP

¶27

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

¶28

4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition due to his own conduct? OPR

¶29

Relief.

¶30

All the issues were decided in negative and the reference was also answered in negative by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶31

Learned Tribunal on appreciation of material on record returned categoric finding of fact that petitioner had failed to prove his employment as Inspector/Supervisor. Accordingly, learned Tribunal rejected the claim of petitioner. As regards the claim to

¶32

the post of Supervisor/Inspector raised by the petitioner, it was held that no such reference was before the Tribunal in that regard.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal on the grounds that the same is perverse

¶34

¶35

being against the material on record. He placed strong reliance on document Ext. PW-1/D, which according to him was a certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Vidhan Sabha, Shimla certifying the job of petitioner to be that of Supervisor/Inspector. He further contended that learned Tribunal had erred in ignoring such an important piece of evidence.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the award on the ground that there was no evidence worth the name to prove that petitioner had ever worked as Supervisor/ Inspector.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

¶38

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though is wide, but needs due care and great circumspection, while dealing with the orders of the Tribunals constituted under special legislations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶39

¶40

in Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983) 4 SCC 156 has observed as under:

¶41

“ We are afraid the High Court misdirected itself. The jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the Tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management. There was a conciliation proceeding, the conciliation had failed and the Conciliation Officer had so reported to the

¶42

¶43

Government. The Government was justified in thinking that there was an industrial dispute and referring it to the Labour Court.”

¶44

12. In State of H.P. and another vs. Biri

¶45

Singh and another , CWP No. 217 of 2016 decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.09.2016, in almost identical facts it has been observed as under:

¶46

“9. It has been the well-established principle that industrial adjudication is not merely adjudicating contractual rights based on strict principles of law. The higher Courts can interfere against the awards passed by the Labour Courts only if there are manifest errors or the order is contrary to the provisions of law and the order has been passed without jurisdiction and that is the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the High Court cannot sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the competent tribunal by converting itself into a court of appeal.”

¶47

It is otherwise trite law that this Court will

¶48

not sit in appeal on the decisions of the Tribunals created under special statutes. It is only in the case of absolute illegality or perversity in the award passed by

¶49

¶50

the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court that

¶51

interference by way of writ jurisdiction may be required.

¶52

Reverting to the case in hand, no perversity has been found in the impugned award. Except for bald statement of petitioner, there is no other evidence on record to prove his contention that the respondent had taken the work of Supervisor/Inspector from him at any point of time. The proof of such fact was sine qua non for considering the case of petitioner for reliefs as prayed for by him before learned Tribunal. The statement of PW-2 also does not help the cause of petitioner as this witness nowhere stated that petitioner had worked as Supervisor/Inspector, rather according to PW-2 also, petitioner was a Beldar. I have also gone through the contents of document Ext. PW1/D, which reads as under:

¶53

“ TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”

¶54

Certified that Sh.Rattan Lal s/o Sh. Khewan Ram is working as casual beldar on Muster-Roll w.e.f. 03.06.1994 to till date. He is

¶55

¶56

deputed to supervise the Casual Labour and works in Shimla-Bye-Pass.

¶57

He is honest, hardworking and devoted to his duty. I wish him success in life.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

The aforesaid document also does not prove

¶60

that the petitioner was working as Supervisor /Inspector. On the contrary, it recorded that the petitioner was working as casual beldar on muster-roll w.e.f. 03.06.1994. The certificate was issued on 23.02.1996. Simply because the said certificate also records that petitioner was deputed to supervise the casual labour and works on Shimla-Bye-Pass, does not prove his case. At the most, it can be inferred that the Assistant Engineer on a particular day had deputed the petitioner to supervise the work.

¶61

The facts of instant case do not warrant any interference with the award passed by learned Tribunal. The findings returned by learned Tribunal are borne from the record and thus no perversity can be attached to such findings.

¶62

¶63

Another contention raised on behalf of the

¶64

petitioner is that the reference made by the appropriate Government clearly contained the question for determination regarding the right of petitioner to be appointed as Inspector/Supervisor and learned Tribunal had clearly erred in concluding that no such reference was before it. The contention so raised need not be addressed in view of the fact that the finding of fact returned by learned Tribunal have been affirmed by this Court and it is held that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had worked as Supervisor/Inspector at any point of time.

¶65

In light of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶66

9^th December, 2022 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge

Rattan Lal v. the Executive Engnineer Hppwd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rattan Lal v. the Executive Engnineer Hppwd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Vijay Kumar

Lac Vs Bhagwan Dass

Ms R K Construction Co. Vs State of Hp

Hem Raj Mehta and Ors. Vs Subhasish Panda and Ors.

Meena Vs Sanjay Kumar

Bhoopender Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.