Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOHAN SINGH versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sohan Singh v. Presiding Officer & Ors - CWP-3478-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3233 (17 May 2006)

CWP No. 3478 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. NO. 3478 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION : 25-5-2006

Sohan Singh ... ... PETITIONER.

Presiding Officer and ... ... RESPONDENTS others

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.NARANG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR

Present: Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate,

for the petitioner

Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate,

for Mr. V.G.Dogra, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

...

JUDGMENT:

Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order 11.8.2003, Annexure P/1, dismissing his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (in short the Act).

It is the case of the petitioner-workman that he was working as driver with respondent no.2-management in their Sugar Mill.

He approached the management claiming benefits in terms of money on the basis of recommendations/report of the Wage Board as applicable to the respondent-industry through an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Upon notice of the said application, reply was filed by respondent No.2. Both parties led their respective evidence. On appreciation of evidence so put forward, the learned Labour Court vide order dated CWP No. 3478 of 2005 2

11.8.2003 dismissed the application of the petitioner-workman. Hence, the present writ petition.

On issuance of notice of the writ petition, written statement has been filed by the respondent-management. A preliminary objection has been raised therein that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as against impugned order dated 11.8.2003 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in January 2005, i.e. after a period of more than 1-1/2 years. On merits, it has been submitted that application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was not maintainable as the basic liability was disputed since the petitioner wanted change of status froma fixed wage employee to a graded employee under the Central Wage Board.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A proceeding under Section 33-C (2) Act is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise, duly provided for. In other words this provision applies where there is an enforceable existing right to receive a monetary benefit. In the instant case, the petitioner-workman is working as driver at a monthly salary of Rs.1800/-. He wants that the recommendations of the Wage Board for Sugar Industries should be applied, entitling him a salary of Rs.3869/-. The stand of the management is that the petitioner-workman is a fixed wage employee engaged for a specific period. The recommendations of the Wage Board are not applicable to him. We are of the view that there requires a determination whether the recommendations of the Wage Board for Sugar Industries are applicable to him or not? However, this fact cannot be determined under Section 33-C (2) of the Act ibid as the petitioner- workman has no pre-existing right. It is the subject matter to be decided in a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Act and cannot be regarded as mere incidental to computation under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The application of the petitioner-workman has rightly been dismissed by the Labour Court.

CWP No. 3478 of 2005 3

No interference is called for. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

( ARVIND KUMAR )

JUDGE

( J. S. NARANG )

May 25, 2006 JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.