State of Punjab vs Dewan Chand

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the order dated 9.6.1999 (copy Annexure P/1) of the

Labour Court u/s 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Act) vide which it '' awarded Rs. 19,092/- to

respondent No. 1 for the arrears of the increments from 7/93 to 12/96.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was temporary/casual employee and he was not entitled to increment and,

therefore, the Labour Court has gone beyond the jurisdiction conferred to it u/s 33(c)(2) of the Act. Claim made by the respondent was for the

arrears of the increments from 1.1.1986. The Labour Court has awarded the same from 7/93. The Labour Court in its judgment has observed that

surprisingly the workman has been granted the regular grade from 7/93 till today."" If the workman was regular then the Labour Court award was

not said to be wrong. The Labour Court has not awarded any amount for the period prior to 7/93.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was not regular employee from 7/93. In the writ petition, pleading regarding

this question is in para 6. It is as under :

That the learned Labour Court is erred on the fact that respondent workman has claimed the com- putation of the arrears of annual increments

from 1.1.86 to 31.12.1996 and that the learned Labour Court partly accepting the claim Annexure P/1 of respondent workman order for payment

on account or arrears of increments from 7/93 till 12/96 ignoring the fact that respondent was a casual Beldar during the whole period of 1.1.1996

to 31.12.1996 and while granting the respondent Annual Increments from 7/93 to 12/96 nothing particular is taken into consideration.

What the petitioner has asserted that the respondent was not regular upto 31.12.1986 (31.12.1996 ?) but it is riot stated that the observation of

the Labour Court quoted above is wrong.

The Labour Court has, therefore, power to consider the question of increment in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Ors. 1997(4) RSJ 580 : 1997(4) SCT 516 (PH)

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.