Dismissed
Kulwant Kaur v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Ludhiana and Others
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/7273/2024
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2024 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2024 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.7273 of 2024 - �-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7273 of 2024 Date of Decision:09.08.2024
Kulwant Kaur
….Petitioner
vs.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.09 03:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.7273 of 2024 - �-
“6) After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the file, I am of the considered opinion that there is merit in contentions advanced by the A/R for the applicant/management. Admittedly, reference No.276 of 2012 filed by the respondent/workman was allowed vide Award dated 30.09.2016 by this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide dated 30.9.2016 reinstated the workman into service of the applicant/management with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages. The respondent/workman was directed to return for duty within 30 days from the publication of the award.
7) Apart from this, it is also pointed out that there is no pleading of the respondent/workman in the said reference petition that she was entitled to any Dearness allowance besides the salary. Rather, categorical pleading taken by the respondent/workman in the said reference was that her average pay was Rs.3360/- per month. It is neither the case of the respondent/workman in the said petition that applicant/management was liable to pay any dearness allowance to her w.e.f. 13.04.2007
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.09 03:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.7273 of 2024 - �-
till the date of her reinstatement nor she sought relief regarding the same from the Tribunal in the said reference petition. It is settled proposition of law that under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, an applicant/workman can seek the recovery of the wages etc which has been awarded to him/her by way of award/settlement or he/she is having pre existing right to the said wages etc. Here in the present case, the workman neither sought recovery of dearness allowance from this Tribunal in the reference petition No.276/2012 nor the said question of payment of arrears of dearness allowance was admitted one between both the parties.
8) xxxx xxxx xxxx
9) Having regard to my discussion above, it is held that relief sought in application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is clearly beyond the scope of said application and same cannot be adjudicated in the said application as per ratio of authority Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Supra). There is merit in the application of the applicant/management and accordingly, the same is allowed. Consequently the present application of the respondent/workman filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.”
is evident that Labour Court has denied claim of petitioner under Section 33C(2) of 1947 Act because there was no order qua payment of Dearness Allowance in the Award dated 30.09.2016. The proceedings under Section 33C(2) of 1947 Act are execution in nature. In the absence of determination
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.09 03:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.7273 of 2024 - �-
of entitlement, the application is not maintainable under Section 33C(2) of
1947 Act.
infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
09.08.2024
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.09 03:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a workman can claim Dearness Allowance arrears under Section 33C(2) ID Act when the reinstatement award made no such order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwant Kaur
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court