Allowed

General Manager Punjab Roadways v. Amrik Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2013CWP/4905/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Award of the Labour Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a substantive claim for pay arrears and bonus under Section 33(2)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

This writ petition is allowed; the impugned Award dated 23rd July 1991 is set aside.

General Manager Punjab Roadways Vs Amrik Singh — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.4905 of 1992 -:1:-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 4905 of 1992. Date of decision : 05.07.2013.

¶4

General Manager & another

¶5

...... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Amritk Singh & another

¶8

...... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶10

*******

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶14

¶15

Present : Mr. Anil Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶16

Mr. Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶17

*******

¶18

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

¶19

By this petition the petitioner-State has challenged Award dated 23^rd July, 1991 passed in favour of the workman. The workmen had filed claim-petition claiming 35,000/- which illegally stopped on account of the fact that his increment has not been granted to him and an amount of 10,000/- for bonus. In reply petitioner-State took the plea that the application is not maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) and the substantive claim-petition should have been filed. The second plea was with regard to

¶20

CWP No.4905 of 1992 -:2:-

¶21

delay because as per the petitioner State of Punjab the impugned amount had taken place in the year 1974 and the challenge had been led in the year 1986. It was further projected by the State that before imposing the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect show cause notice has been issued and reply thereto had been considered. The Labour Court found that the show cause notice had been served on the respondentworkman on 20^th August, 1974 but the reply purported to have been considered was of 12^th August, 1974. He, therefore, held that this reply could not be related to the show cause notice. The Labour Court further found that the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect is illegal and in any way this could not be done since this is a major penalty and this was not done. He rejected the claim for bonus and consequently allowed the application, hence present petition.

¶22

Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that now beyond the pain of any controversy that a substantive claim cannot be adjudicated under Section 33(2)(C) and could not be adjudicated only in application under Section 10(1)A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has fairly accepted this position in law but has sought to argue that the orders impugned by the workman was ex-facie, illegal for the reasons mentioned by the Labour Court. He further argued that the workman has been suffered for almost 40 years, the impugned order is 22 years old and consequently in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the substantive interest of the justice the petition should be dismissed.

¶23

It may be mentioned here that this writ petition was ordered to be heard with C.W.P. No.5757 of 1992, as it was also an identical case and

¶24

CWP No.4905 of 1992 -:3:-

¶25

the same has been decided by this Court by order dated 18^th January 1995. This Court while placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. Raja Gopalan A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 743 follow by

¶26

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. The Workman AIR

¶27

1974 S.C. 1604 held that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order under Section 33 (2) (C). Learned Additional Advocate General has further relied upon another decision of this Court in C.W.P. No.4096 of 1992, C.W.P. No.4909 of 1992 and C.W.P. No.12479 of 1992 wherein also identical questions were raised and the said writ petitions were also allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 20^th April, 2011. Wherein apart from the judgments cited above this Court also relied upon another judgment of this Court in General Manager vs. Shri Dyal Singh reported as1995 (3) RSJ 804.

¶28

In view of this catena of binding judgments I have no option, but to allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order.

¶29

( AJAY TEWARI ) July 5^th , 2013 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot

General Manager Punjab Roadways v. Amrik Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager Punjab Roadways v. Amrik Singh

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

Kashmira Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Pb. through Secrectary Corp & Ors.

Vidya Wati & Anr. Vs Collector Kurukshetra & Anr.

Ved Parkash Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ram Kumar and Ors. Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Lalit Mohan Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Ors.