Haryana State Co-operative Supply vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Mr. P.B. Bajanthri, J.(Oral) - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has question the order dated 06.04.1994 of the labour Court.

The respondent-workman Sh. Suresh Kumar was appointed as daily wager as Operator in HAFED Bakeries, Bhiwani on 24.04.1981. He submitted application under Section 33-C (2) before the labour Court seeking for equal pay for equal work. Application was allowed by the labour Court.

Feeling aggrieved by the award of the labour Court dated 06.04.1994, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act submitted by the respondent-workman is not maintainable before the labour Court on the question of jurisdiction. The decision of labour Court is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision of this Court passed in CWP No. 5389 of 1989 ; The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak & others and connected matters decided on 07.01.2009, vide which this Court set-aside the order passed by the labour Court on the sole ground that application filed by the workman therein under Section 33-C (2) was not maintainable on the ground that there was no pre-determined right nor was there any adjudication determining the salary which the workman was entitled, which would call for application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court in the above decision relied upon the Supreme Court decision reported in 1994 (5) SLR 764 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another wherein it is held that provision under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the daily rated and casual workers claiming pay equal to the regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work is not maintainable for the reasons that very basis for claim was disputed and there was no proper adjudication or recognition of such a claim by the petitioner. Therefore, decision of the labour Court is liable to be set-aside.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent relied on decision of Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another whereas the Supreme Court in the very same case reverse the decision of the Delhi High Court in the year 1994 cited supra.

In view of the decision of the Apex Court read with the decision of this Court, decision of the labour Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition stands allowed and award dated 06.04.1994 of the labour Court is set aside.