Municipal Committee vs Labour Court and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Nos. 5989 and 5994 of 1988 as the law point involved in both the petitions is the same.

The facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 5989 reveal that Veroo Ram respondent No. 2 was employed as peon with the petitioner- management under the terms and conditions laid down under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. He filed an application u/s 33C(2) of the In-dustrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), before the Labour Court, Bhatinda, seeking special pay @ Rs. 40 per month for doing some additional work and Rs. 50 per month as dearness allowance from January 1, 1976 to June 30, 1982 claiming a total sum of Rs. 7,020.

The matter was contested by the petitioner-management but the Labour Court, vide its award dated March 24, 1988 allowed the claim of respondent-workman at the rate of Rs. 40 per month as special pay for doing additional work but his claim at the rate of Rs. 50 per month as dearness allowance was rejected. In the manner aforesaid, he was held entitled to Rs. 3, 120 from the petitioner-management. It is this award which has been challenged in these petitions.

Admittedly, on October 20, 1976, the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur, had ordered that additional allowance paid to the Punjab municipal employees except revised grades given by the report of pay committee should be stopped immediately. It was observed in the aforesaid order that the payment of additional allowance was causing heart-burning and had brought down efficiency. It caused division amongst the employees and the Municipal Committee was burdened with financial load. The respondent- workman as per orders aforesaid was not to be given additional allowance. It is in consequence of this order that the additional allowance earlier granted to the workman was withdrawn. The respondent-workman claimed dearness allowance also as referred to above. The same was not allowed by the Labour Court, vide award Annexure P-1.

Mr. Rakesh Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, forcefully contends that while allowing the relief to the respondent-workman, the legality and propriety of the order, Annexure-P-2, had necessarily to be gone into and the same could not be done in proceedings initiated by respondent-workman u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For his aforestated contention, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Their workman 1974 (29) FLR 56 (SC), as also the judgment of this court in General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Jullundur 1983 85 P&H LR 467. The point projected by learned counsel has substance as it is settled proposition of law that proceedings u/s 33C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings based upon admitted or settled right of the workman. In the present case, before the workman could be granted any relief, order Annexure P-2 had to be set aside. In General Manager, Northern Railway''s case (supra), it was held as under:

"Held, that in the present case before the workman could be awarded full pay and allowances as claimed by him, it would be necessary for the Labour Court to determine his right to such pay and allowances which in turn would necessarily call into question, the validity of the order passed by the General Manager under the Service Rules governing the matter allowed him only subsistence allowance for the period in question. In the face of this order of the General Manager, it could not be said that there was any existing right to the amount claimed which the workman could seek to recover u/s 33C(2) of the Act. In other words, determination of the right of workman to full pay and allowances would be the principal matter for adjudication here, incidental would be only the computation of such amount. There is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned award of the Labour Court was without jurisdiction and must consequently be quashed."

For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the award Annexure P-1 is quashed.

The facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 5994 reveal that respondent, Devinder Singh, was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was issued to him. He was suspended on September 19, 1980 and was reinstated on July 31, 1981. During the period of suspension, he was to be paid pay and allowances as admissible to an employee under suspension. After the completion of the enquiry and finalisation of the charge-sheet, it was found that he was guilty of the allegations made against him and punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect was inflicted upon him. In so far as the period of suspension was concerned, it was ordered that the same may be treated as leave of the kind due to him, other than casual leave. The workman, however, filed an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court ordered that since no consent of the workman was taken for treating the suspension period as leave of the kind due, he was entitled to all the wages for the period he remained under suspension. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition.

The order is sought to be set aside on the parity of the same reasons as given in support of the earlier case decided just now. The workman, it is argued, could not ask for setting aside of an order by which he was held entitled to get only suspension allow over in the proceedings initiated by him u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition too succeeds and award, Annexure P-2, is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs.