AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner i.e. The Bhagwanpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Bhagwanpur, District Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as, the Society) seeks issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing impugned Awards Annexures P-6 and P-7 of the Labour Court, Jalandhar whereby accepting application of the respondent No. 2 Baldev Singh salesman, (hereinafter referred to as the workman) made u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter mentioned as, the Act), payment of Rs. 28,130-49 Ps. was ordered to be made. Facts relevant for adjudication of this petition are, as under:
The workman was appointed as salesman on 15.6.1979. He was allegedly terminated, though stand of the Society was that he had abandoned service of the Society w.e.f. 3.1.1983. On industrial dispute having been raised by the workman, the State Government had referred such dispute to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for adjudication. It was on 24.6.1983. After receiving evidence from the parties and evaluating the same, the Award was passed on 30.3.1987. Possessed with the Award in his favour, the workman made an application on 19.1.1988 u/s 33-C(2) of the Act claiming therein the difference of salary. The Society had contested this application to which replication (Annexure P-4) was preferred by the workman.
Adjudicating application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act, impugned Award was made on 1.9.1993; on application made for correction of the Award on 14.12.1991, notwithstanding contest made by the Society, corrigendum was made on 28.2.1994.
Challenging the Award (Annexure P-6 corrected vide order dated 28.2.1994 (Annexure P-7), claim of the Society is that the workman had already been paid arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 28,924.54 Ps. from the date of his termination to the date of his reinstatement, and nothing was due to him. It is canvassed that the workman even then had claimed difference of Rs. 22,254.45 Ps. alleging to have been appointed in regular grade of Rs. 400-600, from the date he was initially appointed. It is also claimed that when the workman had been appointed on fixed wages, he was not to be paid salary in regular pay scale and thus entire exercise of the Labour Court in passing the Award was mis-founded.
Stand of the workman, on the other hand, is that though he was being paid fixed salary but it was subject to revision of pay scale and he was entitled for arrears consequent upon said revision of pay scales and thus was rightly held entitled for payment of arrears vide the impugned Award.
Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.
When these rival claims of the parties are evaluated on the canvass of facts and attending circumstances, it transpires that there is merit in the claim of the workman. Resolution (Annexure R-4) of 6.6.1979 pertains to selection of the workman as salesman on a salary of Rs. 200/- per month but with a stipulation as under:
Later on, he shall be given salary as fixed by the Government.
Vide yet another resolution (Annexure R-5), the Society on 9.10.1979 had further resolved that salary, inter-alia, of the workman as had been given by the Government, be given as per the grades. Further resolution (Annexure R-6) of the Society reveals that the workman was entitled to salary as per Government grades. Despite such stand of the Society reflected in its own documents, revealing record of resolutions passed by it entitling the workman to wages in terms of grades of the Government, the Society did not pay arrears accordingly. The Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1979 (Annexure R-7) which became effective from 1.6.1979 reveal that scale of pay for a salesman was Rs. 100-4-140; dearness and other allowances as per Government rules were also to be paid. Vide Annexure R-3 of 3.8.1979, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh had amended applicability of scale and revised pay scale became Rs. 110-240. It is not in dispute that these scales of pay had been revised from time to time. It is a conceded fact that scale of pay of Rs. 110-240 was then revised to Rs. 400-600. At this stage, it may be worth notice that the Society had no counter-plea to offer except for tendering copies of proceedings which were not even legible. The Labour Court, thus, had rightly come to the following conclusion:
He is perfectly justified in asserting that he was appointed in the grade of Rs. 110-240 which has since been revised to Rs. 400-600 and he should be paid according to this grade. He has claimed arrears of wages w.e.f. 15.6.1979 to 1.6.1987 as per the annexure attached with the application. The total amount claimed by him comes to Rs. 49915.20. I find no ground to doubt the correctness of the claim made by him particularly when the society has not been able to give any satisfactory reply to the assertions of the workman. The society has tendered photostat copies of the proceedings which are illegible. The applicant has stated that on page 89 which is also a photostat copy of the proceedings and that portion which supports his case has been made unreadable by putting ink on it, and there is no rebuttal to his assertions. Rs. 28924/80 has already been paid to the workman through Labour Officer on the basis of the last pay drawn by the workman. I hold him entitled to the remaining amount of Rs. 20,990/69 and direct the respondent-society to make the payment within three months of this order.
It is worth notice that for coming to the conclusion of the amount due, the Labour Court had not taken into consideration calculations in Annexures A and C with the application. It may be pointedly mentioned that application of the workman was having Annexures A, B and C. Annexure-A pertained to calculations from 15.6.1979 to 2.1.1983, in Annexure-B there were calculations from 3.1.1983 to 26.6.1987 whereas in Annexure-C there were calculations from 27.6.1987 to 31.12.1987. While passing Award (Annexure P-6), the Labour Court had completely omitted to take into account Annexure-A and Annexure-C and gave its Award considering only Annexure-B. Thus, making correction in Award dated 1.9.1993 (Annexure P-6), instead of amount of Rs. 20,990.69 Ps. On re-computation, this amount had become Rs. 28,130.49 Ps. Thus, this correction made vide Annexure P-7 became part of Award of 1.9.1993. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned Award (Annexures P-6 and P-7). Consequently, the petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.