The Punjab State Electricity Board vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court

V.K. Bali, J.—This order will dispose of four connected petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 6228, 6229, 6230 and 6231 of 1988 as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 6228 of 1988.

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash Award dated November 2, 1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by Labour Court, Patiala.

Respondent workman Stm. Sudhir Bala joined the petitioner Board as Dispenser in the pay scale of Rs. 160-10-250/15-400. At the time of revision of pay scales, she was also getting Rs. 30/- per month as special pay. The grades of different categories of employees of the Board were revised in the year 1980 with effect from January 1, 1978. On her re-designation as Pharmacist, respondent-workman was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 510-15-600/20-700/25-850-30-940 as against the existing grade of Rs. 160-400. By virtue of Regulation 4 of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Scales of Pay) Regulations, 1980, an option was given to respondent-workman as also to all employees of the different categories of the Board to choose the revised scales or to continue drawing their pay in the existing scale. Under Regulation 5 of the said Regulations, respondent-workman was required to exercise her option in writing on the prescribed proforma within four months from the date of issue of the 1980 Regulations which was February 5 that if no opinion was received by the Board within the said period an employee had to be deemed to have chosen the revised scale of pay from the appointed day i.e. January 1, 1978. Respondent-workman did not exercise the option within the prescribed period and as such she was deemed to have accepted the revised scale of pay. The Board issued an order on August 12, 1980 that the special pay of respondent-workman had been abolished in the revised scale of pay but in order to protect the special pay, it was decided by the Board that special pay admissible in the existing scale shall be treated as personal pay which would be absorbed in future increments in order to avoid any possible loss to her and other similar situated employees of the Board. The Board had, thus, issued a circular to this effect on May 23, 1980. All other allowances i.e. Dearness allowance and other similar allowances were given to respondent workman by adding the special pay of Rs. 30/- to the basic pay.

The respondent-workman, however, filed an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act Claiming special pay which was allowed by the impugned Award rendered by the Labour Court which has been challenged in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that rights of workman were determined vide Annexure P-2. an order issued by the Management-Board, with regard to special pay, it was specifically stipulated as follows:-

"(i) xx xx xx xx (ii) Cases in which special pay was not in lieu of higher time scale but has been abolished in the revised scale.

(iii) Cases in which special pay was admissible in the existing scale and has also been sanctioned in the revised scale as a separate component.

xx xx 2. The position in respect of the cases referred to above has been considered and the same is clarified as under:-

xx xx 2. In cases falling in category (ii)

Special pay will not form part of existing emoluments in view of the provisions of the aforesaid clause. The element of dearness pay, dearness, allowances, interim relief/adhoc relief and additional dearness allowances admissible on the pay plus special pay in the un-revised scale if taken into account for determining pay in the revised scale of pay, the special pay admissible in the existing scale be treated as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments in order to avoid any possible loss to the affected employees".

The perusal of the relevant portion of the order, extracted above, would reveal that workman, after the revision of pay scales, was not entitled to any special pay. It is further contended that till such time the legality and propriety of this order was challenged in a reference u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, workman was not entitled to any relief as the claim made by him was not depending upon some established or admitted right. The matter, it is further contended, could not be gone in a petition u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is in the nature of an execution proceeding and for this stand, learned counsel relies upon the decision of Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. The Workmen and Another, " as also Judgment of this Court reported in "The General Manager Northern Railway, New Delhi v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Labour Court, Jullundur,2 (1983) 85 P.L.R. 467." The point projected by the learned counsel has substance as it is settled proposition of law that proceedings u/s 33C(2) are in the nature of executing proceedings based upon admitted or settled right of 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 Railways 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 allowing 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 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-4 is quashed. However parties are left to bear their own costs.