Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE BUDHAKHERA CO

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Budhakhera Co-op. Society v. Presiding Officer - CWP-18793-1997 [2006] RD-P&H 3313 (19 May 2006)

CWP No. 18793 of 1997 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 18793 of 1997

DATE OF DECISION : 25-5-2006

The Budhakhera Co-op. Society ... PETITIONER.

Presiding Officer and ... RESPONDENTS

another.

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

Present: Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Mehta, Advocate, with

Ms. Rup Rekha Rani, 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 dated 12.9.1997, Annexure P-2, allowing the application of respondent No.2-workman filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

In the writ petition, petitioner,namely, The Budha Khera Co-operative Credit and Service Society Limited, Budhakhera, District Hissar ( hereinafter referred to as the management) has averred that it appointed Pushkar Dutt, respondent No.2-workman as Salesman on a consolidated salary of Rs.800/- per month. Later, respondent-workman filed Civil Writ Petition No.2481 of 1991 seeking regularization in view of Piara Singh's case, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 15.2.1991 CWP No. 18793 of 1997 2

asking the workman to make a representation to the Authority concerned who was directed to pass a speaking order thereon. It is alleged in the petition that the managing committee in collusion with the workman passed resolution dated 29.6.1991,Annexure P-1, thereby giving grade of Rs.950- 1500/- to the respondent-workman with effect from 1.1.1980. Petitioner- management has further averred that resolution, Annexure P/1, was not in consonance with the order passed by the High Court in the afore-stated writ petition and that in fact the said resolution was manoeuvred by workman- respondent No.2. It is stated that the workman also received enhanced wages for the months of July, August and September,1991 and further challenged the action of the management in not paying him for the months of October to December 1991 whereas he was entitled to consolidated salary at a fixed pay of Rs.800/- per month, as fixed by the Registrar, Co- operative Societies. Due to non-payment of salary for the months of October 1991 to December, 1991, respondent No.2-workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 12.9.1997 and a sum of Rs.5388/- was computed in favour of the respondent-workman with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Upon notice of the writ petition, written statement has been filed by the respondent-workman. A preliminary objection has been raised that resolution, Annexure P-1, has never been challenged and is still in force and therefore, petitioner-management has no right to challenge it.

On merits, it has been submitted that the allegation regarding collusion of workman with the management in getting the resolution issued was never pleaded before the Labour Court and thus, the resolution was duly implemented.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Under Section 33-C(2) of the Act ibid, where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which the benefit should be computed, the question has to be decided by the Labour Court. 'Money Due' here means the money which has been ascertained and CWP No. 18793 of 1997 3

has become payable. This provision, therefore, applies where there is an enforceable existing right to receive a monetary benefit. Remedy under this section is akin to execution proceedings. In the instant case, right has accrued to the respondent-workman by virtue of resolution dated 29.6.1991, Annexure P-1, wherein he has been given the grade of Rs.950-1500/- with effect from 1.1.1980. This has been done by virtue of the directions passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2481 of 1991 on 15.2.1991 to consider the case of regularization of the respondent-workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management has argued that the said resolution in fact was got passed by the Managing Body in collusion with the respondent- workman. The argument is not sustainable for variety of reasons; firstly, there is no plea of collusion taken by them in the written statement filed before the Labour Court; secondly, the petitioner-management is heavily burdened to prove the collusion but there is no evidence in that respect.

So much so, they had not even opted to lead any evidence before the Labour Court. There is nothing to suggest whether the resolution has been challenged by the petitioner-management anywhere. The said resolution dated 29.6.1991, Annexure P-1, is still in force. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent-workman was given wages at the rate of Rs.1796/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. The due payments were made vide payment vouchers, (Exhibits W-2 and W-3 before the Labour Court) for the months of July, August and September, 1991.

There was, thus, no reason to withhold wages for the subsequent months from October 1991 to December 1991 on the flimsy ground that the said resolution was colluded one.

In view of the above discussion, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the application of the respondent-workman and accordingly, the same calls for no interference.

The writ petition is dismissed.

( ARVIND KUMAR )

JUDGE

( J. S. NARANG )

May 25, 2006 JUDGE

JS


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.